What has always bothered me about Judge Roy Moore is his disinterest in enforcing laws he doesn't like. That's not what judges are supposed to do. The whole idea of The Law is that we agree on what's illegal in the same way we all agree on who's going to occupy political office. Sometimes, we decide by direct vote. Sometimes, the decisions are made by those we choose by direct vote.
A police officer doesn't get to decide that there ought to be a law that says you have to speak English and then arrest you if you don't. A judge doesn't get to say there shouldn't be a law against selling cocaine and then turn any cocaine dealer free. The fact that some people think God would want something else done is not a part of our legal system. But Moore thinks it is and that he (he, Roy Moore…not He, God) is the spokesperson for what God would want.
So I don't like the guy and let's be honest — I am more inclined than some to believe the allegations against him are true. That's because I have long seen him as a person who believes his judgments of what's proper supersede actual laws. If a bunch of bank tellers swore he'd robbed their bank, I'd probably figure yeah, he probably did and he can probably cite something in the Bible as proof that God wanted him to do it.
I also caught his big denial interview the other night with Sean Hannity and thought he was evasive and contradictory. The Washington Post, which broke the whole story in the first place, has posted the text of that interview with annotations that point up the contradictions.
I am also of the mind that if you have the truth on your side and you want to present your defense, you go on with someone who's going to ask tough questions, not a guy like Hannity who's eager to make you look good. Moore might as well have been interviewed by one of his political cronies who are out there now, saying Moore's accusers should be prosecuted. Want to understand why some women are so hesitant to report abuse? There it is, people.
If you can spare eighteen minutes, my friend Paul Harris did an excellent segment on his radio program about Roy Moore and you can hear it here. I'm not so sure those who want Moore's political stance to triumph can be dissuaded from voting for the guy. We're so polarized in this country now that there are those on both the right and left who would vote for Hitler over a guy of the opposition party…but I would hope they would at least understand the choice they're making.
Last Monday evening, Paul and I discussed some of this in person, across a table on which each of us was devouring chicken parmesan. He was in town and as he mentioned here on his blog, I took him to see The Black Version, a local improv troupe which I have repeatedly recommended on my blog. Paul, as you'll read on his, was equally impressed.
Included in our evening were two other folks — my lovely friend Amber and my not-quite-as-lovely-as-Amber-but-still-lovely-in-a-different-way friend Howard Green, who works at Disney and who was one of the other folks behind the June Foray Tribute at the Motion Picture Academy in September. They both loved the show, too. The Black Version will next perform on Saturday evening, January 6 and my God, can you imagine? The year's almost over and I'm booking 2018 already. If you're geographically able to be there on 1/6/18, you can get tickets (as I have) at this webpage.
Also, mentioning Amber makes me think I should say one more thing here…
All this talk about Sexual Harassment is a very good thing, I believe. Yes, there is the potential for false or unwarranted allegations but I still see that as a small, unavoidable downside in correcting what has long been a massive injustice in our society, not only against women but sometimes even men. No one, because they are not as powerful or not as strong or not as able to control a situation, should be forced into sexual relations against their wishes. That is one grave wrong. Another is when minors under the age of consent are involved in sexual relations even with their consent. We all know this. We just need to do a better job of policing it and that starts with identifying it when it happens.
Now, here's where I part company with some people…
Some people are conflating those two wrongs with the situation where an older man is involved with a much younger woman…and I suppose they'd also think an older woman/much younger man match-up was wrong too, though I never hear that. My view is that if the adults are consenting and the adults are adults, it's nobody's business but theirs. This applies to boy/girl, boy/boy or girl/girl and there is no "slippery slope" to fear there. It does not inevitably lead to boy/ostrich or girl/girl/boy/camel.
My last lady friend — the one I was with for twenty years, the one who died last April — was six years older than me. My current lady friend is four decades younger, though of course old enough to drink (though she doesn't), vote (that she does) and get involved with a 65-year-old writer (and I can't fathom why but she does that too). In the past, I have been involved with women both younger than me and older and it has never mattered to me or whoever the lady was at the time. Not in the slightest. If we're adults and we're consenting, it should never matter to anyone else.