Seems people need to get something straight. While much is said about Muslims taking young brides, the Bible does not forbid marriage after puberty and would seem to endorse it https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/07/01/minimum-age-for-marriage-in-the-bible/

Ezekiel 16:4 NIV Translation 4 On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. 5 No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. 6 “‘Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!”[a] 7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked. 8 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body… –

Things have changed in our modern world and I think that it is better for women to marry later. However I know a woman in AL who snuck over to GA to marry at 15 because in AL to do so she would need her parent permission. She celebrated 50 years of marriage before her husband died and as far as I can tell they had a very good marriage. The defense of Roy Moore because Mary the mother of Jesus was a teenager when impregnated by the Holy Spirit and married to an older man is based on the historical fact that most marriages then were to women just past puberty. It is a stupid defense because that accusation says he touched an 14 year old inappropriately and the Bible says that Joseph didn't have sexual relations with Mary before marriage (or apparently for some time after). So it is a red herring defense.

Europe in the Middle Ages was officially all Christian. Yet young marriages, just like Muslim marriages, were often the norm https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/

1. Professor Richard Wortley and Professor Stephen Smallbone, both of whom state that prior to the 1900s girls married very young, “In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.” [2] 3. In the book, ‘Sex and Society’, “Until the late 20th century U.S. age of consent laws specifically names males as perpetrators and females as victims. Following English law, in which the age was set at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576, ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12. The laws protected female virginity, which at the time was considered a valuable commodity until marriage. The theft of a girl’s chastity was seen as a property crime against her father and future husband. If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property. In practice, too, the consent laws only protected white females, as many non-white females were enslaved or otherwise discriminated against by the legal system.” [3]

I am glad things have changed, I would not ever advocate a teenager younger than at least 18 dating an old man or marrying one. But the dynamics are rooted in history and custom and I believe that many such youth dating and marriages are more about insecurity of the male and dominance issues, unlike interest in prepubescent children which is IMO pathological. It is a gray area that wouldn't have been a gray area to Christians before a century or so ago. In Alabama in the 60's it was still considered a nice family outing to go watch a black man hanged by a lynch mob and to buy postcards of the event to send to friends. They have taken a bit longer to move to more modern morals in many areas. Thus I continue to contend that Roy Moore, if he did what he is accused of doing, is not a pedophile, but a sleaze bag and a hypocrite. If revelations that he put moves on young teens after marriage to his beauty queen wife come forward, things will look different. It just looks like Moore is not quite the holy moral man he says he is and since he is so vocal about his morality he is more vulnerable than another politician would be. Another politician could admit what he did, apologize, say he was young and foolish, and move on. Not Moore.