The New Republic

The overwhelming majority of Americans are against discrimination against any individual or group but the overwhelming majority are also against gay marriage. Liberals call people bigots and haters if they are against gay marriage or if they are pro life. There are good, decent people who are against gay marriage and who are pro life who treat everyone fairly and are not bigots nor are they full of hate. Rick Warren is an American and since this is supposed to be a democracy where people are allowed to have different opinions his opinion should be respected the same as those who disagree with him. To liberals "diversity" really means groups of different colors and sexes who agree totally with one agenda. True diversity means letting those whose opinions we disagree with express them freely.

- Mark Jeffery Koch

December 23, 2008 at 8:10am

I admire people so much more who just admit that they think gay citizens deserve unequal treatment under the law. This wide-eyed I'm-just-a-Christian nonsense is just that - self serving hooey. Since when did discrimination and anti-semitism graduate from cancers in to "ideas?" Jesus Christ is *only* on record personally as demanding humility above all else, so where does Warren fit in to that anywhere? Is there anyone more arrogant in publiuc life these days? Calling American citizens pedophiles and telling others they will go to hell unless they do what he says? He's he very opposite of what Jesus Christ demanded from us. Besides, the goverment has no business inserting religious dogma in to a civil ceremony that confers benefits on its recipient and denies them to people who are not allowed to participate. This is simply illegal. You are welcome to your bigotry anywhere you like, welcome to the first ammendment. But you are not allowed however, to insert it verbatim into public policy. I look forward to this being argued in the Supreme Court. Soon.

-

December 23, 2008 at 10:51am

Why the objection to labeling bigots as bigots? Being 'good, decent people' doesn't prevent someone from being a bigot also. There were plenty of good and decent Germans who were Nazis; there were plenty of good and decent Iraqis who supported Saddam. A bigot by definition is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Therefore, one who is strongly partial to his or her own group of sexual orientation and its privileges and is intolerante of those who differ, is a bigot. Adament opponenets of same sex marriage seek to maintain the preferential treatment they get under current marriage laws by expressing an intolerance of the idea that those who differ should succeed in obtaining equality. This bigotry is plain on its face. No one is saying that such persons should not have the freedom to voice their opinion. What is urged is that such bigotry be recognized, and treated, for what it is. Such bigotry, with or withhout hate, is objectionable, and should be objected to by all reasonable persons.

- aurelius

December 23, 2008 at 10:54am

Why is it that blacks are seen as a monolithic community. African-American views run the gamet, as evidenced by TD Jakes and Lowery. Saying that one preacher represents the views of blacks is as ridiculous as saying that Rick Warren presents the views of whites. Oh, wait....you just said the Rick Warren represents the views of blacks. That is just bizarre and offensive.

- Trey

December 23, 2008 at 11:06am

The "overwhelming majority" of Americans in the 1950s were against the right of interracial couples to marry. That does not make those views good or decent. Rather, it is a blight on those people's claims to goodness or decency. So it is with marriage equality. Marriage has been recognized as a basic human and civil right. Those who oppose gay Americans sharing in this right want to deny their neighbors a right they cherish when it comes to themselves. That is the essence of unfair treatment or discrimination. I disagree with John McWhorter's premise that there would not have been an outcry if Obama chose an African-American homophobe to give the invocation rather than a smiling white one. The fact is that if one takes a "middle path" between those who oppose their neighbors' equal rights and those that favor it, the result is tolerance of intolerance and less support for equality. Catering to a prejudice does not become justified because it is held by another minority group, even one's own. When it comes to substance, Obama is offering little to lgbt Americans that is not Clinton redux. Lgbt Americans are beginning to see that Obama intends to bargain and horse trade with their civil rights in a way he would not do with any other oppressed or minority group, in order to establish his centrist, aisle-crossing credentials.

- David Goroff

December 23, 2008 at 11:09am

In response to some of the responses to my earlier posting: It's so sad when liberal posters compare Nazi's and Saddam Hussein's sadistic murderers to people who are not supportive of gay marriage. A lot of people like myself who were staunch Obama supporters and are who for civil unions are also against gay marriage. To compare people who don't agree with your opinion to the Nazi's, sadistic thugs, or people who lynched Blacks in the South is the reason why moderate Americans, which the overwhelming majority of Americans are, are sick and tired of the verbal garbage coming from both the right and the left. Perhaps some of you folks forgot why Obama got elected. It was NOT because of some liberal agenda but it was the promise of bringing ALL Americans together and respecting EVERYONE's opinion and NOT demonizing those who we disagree with.

- Mark Jeffery Koch

December 23, 2008 at 11:20am

and while I wouldn't necessarily believe an pro-life individual to be a bigot, I cannot say the same for people who are against gay marriage. Why don't LGBT Americans deserve the same rights as others? Why would anyone petition the courts to nullify all those gay marriages?

- Trey

December 23, 2008 at 11:23am

I'm sure that gays don't enjoy homosexuality being compared to pedophilia and incest. Women who have received abortions do not enjoy being compared to Nazi's.

- Trey

December 23, 2008 at 11:56am

Mark, as a gay man myself if Obama has the iron to pass a federal civil union arrangement the Rick Warren hooha will be forgotten as if it never happened. Sadly, I'm skeptical that it is likely to happen. Civil union supporters typically only are pro civil union as long as there's gay marriage talk in the air. When the idea of civil unions seem set to actually become reality people seem to backpedal pretty furiously much like the Mormons and their supposed support for civil unions or the social conservatives and their many gay friends. Still Obama is being pretty slick with this Warren invitation. I don't personally blame him for doing it. The main part that annoys me is the Obama defenders presenting us with dogfood and calling it caviar. Obama has delivered a dissapointment to his gay supporters. He may well have good reason for it, maybe he truely does care to try and make the lives of gay people a little less burdened. But it's insulting to try and pretend that a slap is not a slap.

- Minnesota

December 23, 2008 at 12:32pm

I agree that Nazis should be left out of any discussion not involving Hitler's era and the Holocaust. This is sacred ground. Please remember that the deeply witless Warren has compared women to Nazi's and LGBT folks to pedophiles, I cannot think of anything more insensitive, hatemongering and moronic than using such language against people he simply "disgrees with."

-

December 23, 2008 at 12:37pm

That's a very bad argument. Propose an imaginary alternative, then *guess* at how 'the progressives' would react, then on the basis of this *guess* chastize them for reacting this way. It's ludicrous to attempt to rebuke people for reacting in a way that they haven't in fact reacted but have merely been predicted to react.

- Ophelia Benson

December 23, 2008 at 12:39pm

This just shows that one can't simply slot groups of people (or most individuals) into broad categories such as 'liberal' and 'conservatives'on a cooky-cutter basis. Many people of colour, and others from from rural or other cultural backgrounds, come from communities holding traditionalist values and, while they want to advance economically, socially and politically, they see no reason to change their other beliefs at this point of time. On the other hand, many 'conservative' communities and individuals hold progressive views on particular topics. People and communities are simply complex and it does little good to view them as illogical, ungreatful or uncaring because they don't subscribe to the full list of 'liberal' beliefs (or, from the conservative perspective, 'conservative' ones). One can argue with deep conviction for many liberal positions, as I would, but this does not mean that one must therefore subscribe to all such positions or that, provided one is respectful and thoughtful to all other points of view, that one should feel somehow incomplete or legitimately open to criticism on the basis of bad faith for any views held.

- bob adamson

December 23, 2008 at 1:04pm

Frankly, I don't care if everyone accepts me or my life views. People are indeed entitled to their opinions, however misguided they may be. What I do object to is the idea that say, YOUR particular religious notions (which I may regard as mere superstition, but allow you) are used to batter me by forcing me to live in accordance with your beliefs, e.g., not allowing me full citizenship by forbidding my marrying a CONSENTING ADULT of any type. Again, keep your beliefs and religious ideas, but leave me out of it. This is why separation of church and state is vital when legislating rules that all must live by. To do otherwise is obviously tyranny of the majority. Keep your biblical notions, but don't bind ME by them. My relationship with god is my business, not yours.

- 60christine

December 23, 2008 at 1:46pm

I wonder what's worse, dear Mr. Mark Jeffery Koch, "demonizing those who we disagree with," or denying a subset of the American population basic human rights because of said disagreement?

- Edgar C. De Van IV

December 23, 2008 at 2:42pm

Mark, I don't believe that everyone's opinion is entitled to respect. Some opinions are hateful, some are wrong or based on incorrect information, some reflect something within the holder that is not worthy of respect. "Just give my bigotry respect because it's my opinion, and so deserves it" is silly. I do not give it respect. I do not give respect to the opinions of neo-nazis. I do not give respect to the opinions of young-earthers. They do not deserve my respect, they have not earned, and plaintively and repeatedly demanding it is demeaning to the holder of the opinion. For example, MY opinion is that YOUR opinion is rubbish. RESPECT MT AUTHORTIE! See? It's silly.

-

December 23, 2008 at 2:56pm

Whatever else it is, "marriage" is an English word. By passing Proposition 8, the people of California simply reaffirmed the traditional meaning of this word. A person can't "marry" a person of the same sex, but he also can't marry two people of the opposite sex, or a person of the opposite sex who is not of legal age or is too closely related to him by blood. He also can't marry his dog or his car. This isn't because of "discrimination", but simply because of the meaning of the word "marry". Under Proposition 8, gays and lesbians have exactly the same rights to marry as straight people do. This is an issue of English, not civil rights.

- smia1948

December 23, 2008 at 3:42pm

Mark, suppose a majority of "well-thinking" Americans decided to take away the right to vote from those who were named Mark. Such decent folk have no problem with you having free speech, press and so on. They just think that it sullies their voting process to have your vote included. What would you call those people? To whom would you compare them? Would you think the result just or fair because it had majority backing? Because these people were so gosh-darned wonderful in all other respects? Would you agree they had as much right to take away your right to vote as you had to vote? Would you be content with a middle ground (You get to vote in off-year elections, lets say)? Would you crawl meekly away when they told you how sick and tired they were getting of hearing about your damned vote? I look forward to your answers.

- David Goroff

December 23, 2008 at 3:55pm

What Mr. Koch seems to have missed is that, by a small majority, California voters stripped a fairly large minority (approximately 6-10%, depending on who's counting) of a right the court itself has repeatedly identified as "fundamental." In 1948, the same court determined that the right is "fundamental" in a case involving mixed race marriages. Would anyone today contend that the vast majority of people who supported preventing such marriages in 1948 were not bigots? Hardly. Those who supported Prop 8 voted to write discrimination into the CONSTITUTION!! for no other purpose than to deny a "fundamental" right to gay people that anyone else takes for granted. Why? Purportedly to perserve marriage? Nonsense! It's truly striking that the one State in the union with the lowest divorce rate in the nation (by far) is also the one State that affords marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Denying marriage rights to gays does not, in any way, save or perserve marriage as an institution. What this act did do was strip gays of the right to the same protections for their committed relationships afforded to all others. Spare your lectures about how you care about gay people and their families and please avoid protests that "some of my best friends are gay." Anyone who would deny my family the same rights and protections afforded to all other families is bsolutely no "friend" but exactly the opposite.

- Richard Wood

December 23, 2008 at 3:59pm

"It's so sad when liberal posters compare Nazi's and Saddam Hussein's sadistic murderers to people who are not supportive of gay marriage." The truth hurts doesn't it.

- Yminale

December 23, 2008 at 5:33pm

Both sides are engaging in demonization and dehumanization of their opponents. The LGBT people calling the right bigots and hatemongers is as bad as the right calling the LGBT people freaks and faggots. This is a recipe for polarization and stalemate. The LGBT community needs to understand that many on the right can and will support their civil rights in spite of their opposition to homosexuality. The right needs to understand that the LGBT community has a place in our secular society and many of them don't have an agenda to forcibly indoctrinate our children through the public schools.

- David T.

December 23, 2008 at 7:09pm

Mark Jeffery Koch makes the popular mistake of according equal status to all opinions when he says Warren's opinion "should be respected the same as those who disagree with him." Of course he's right that good people share that opinion, but that does not make the opinion itself respectable. It is as faulty as the opinion that there never really was a holocaust or that our reaching the moon was a hoax. You can't forgive or overlook a faulty opinion simply because it's held by sincere people or by many people. Some of the most notorious opinions in history were held by most of the people, most of whom were sincere. When opinions CAN be put to the test, they should be. Opinions as to the best-tasting ice cream are neither easily tested nor important. Opinions as to group's status within the human context is both important and testable according to established principles, logic, reason, etc. Good people will insist that such opinions be tested and judged. Not to drift into too much philosophy here, but if the group in question is deemed fully human, then we should welcome its members to enjoy all the benefits of our society, equality. See Adler's "Six Great Ideas"—the three we judge by (truth, goodness, beauty) and the three we act on (liberty, equality, justice). Adler's work is not about homosexuality or gay marriage, it is a work about general principles. Follow them and what to do about gays will not be complicated. To summarize, while we respect everyone's right to hold his or her own opinion, we do not necessarily respect the opinions themselves. Some opinions are well-founded, others are downright stupid. How we treat those persons among us who are simply different, and what status we accord them as human beings, must not be determined by "opinion," but by reason, by principle... according to the three great hallmarks of Liberty, Equality & Justice. Sadly, Koch seems comfortable deciding the matter according to popular opinion, regardless of how respectable the opinion itself is or is not.

- ChicagoLarry

December 23, 2008 at 8:52pm

What Mr. Koch seems to have missed is that Prop. 8 involved cementing discrimination into the California Constitution against a relatively large minority of citizens in the State (6 to 10%, depending on who's counting). Like the American Constitution, the California Constitution enumerates certain "fundamental" rights that all Californians have by right of citizenship. Since 1948, the CA Supreme Court has held that the selection of a marriage partner is a "fundamental" right. This right was enunciated in a case that overturned State proscriptions of intra-racial marriages. Apparently, the availability of "fundamental" rights according to Mr. Koch should be limited only to heterosexuals. He apparently seems to buy the argument that gay marriage in some way threatens the institution of marriage. This is completely belied by the fact that those States (Massachusetts and Connecticut) that currently recognize gay marriage are those with lowest divorce rates (by far) in the nation as a whole. Does he really believe that granting the families of gay and lesbian partners the same rights and protections as everyone else is in any way justified by anything other than overt bigotry? Nonsense!! I couldn't give a tinker's damn about what some religion might say about whether gays should marry. The misogyny statutes were justified AND SUPPORTED in their day by a large majority of Californians and were justified on religious grounds. Were they really acceptable for those reasons? Certainly not; and they NEVER were. It has long been the role of the courts to determine the scope of minority rights under the Constitution BECAUSE the majority could always be counted upon to trample them if given the opportunity. Is it really his position that "fundamental" rights as long determined by the courts should wiped away by a plebiscite of a small majority of voters who happen to show up on election day? Perhaps he should rethink that. If he really does believe that then he certainly favors the destruction of Constitutional government as we've always known it. Also, Mr. Koch should spare us his protestations that his position isn't grounded upon bigotry. I'm sure some of his "best friends" are gay and, like Rev. Warren, he condescends to eat regularly with them. However, what kind of "friend" would cavalierly jettison a basic human right on such unbelievably spurious grounds. With "friends" like him and his ilk, who needs enemies?

- Richard Wood

December 23, 2008 at 10:38pm

As usual Mc Whorter give us a penetrating and remarkably subtle and supple analysis not easily labeled as "left" or "right" But the Black church of today is not the Black church of yore, as a cursory glance at Sunday early morning church sermons in any urban market attests. The message is pure "bling": God wants you to have money and success; the preachers manipulative as street corner hustlers, of which TJ Jakes is a prime example. There is a long "offstage" tradition of harsh inside criticism of the Black church, from Langston Hughes' poems to the 60s underground bestseller, "Satan in the Pulpit" that is off-radar to white sensibilities. At the same time, the Gay community shows remarkable lack of sensitivity when it says "gay marriage is a civil rights issue". No, it is not. Unlike segregation laws, which were specifically designed to exclude Blacks from public access, marriage laws were not formulated to specifically exclude gays. Many people find it offensive, as I do, for gays, a group in a much more privileged position than southern Blacks ever were, to compare themselves to the early civil rights movement, especially when mainstream Gay groups were the first to throw overboard that comparison when it suited their narrow political interests (cf, the main gay rights group attempting to do a back room deal several years ago, exchanging support for Social Security privitization for a hand-off neutral position on marriage from the Bush adminstration) This is an issue where Gay marriage supporters need to engage in on-the-ground public debate, not try to win through undemocratic mechanisms like court rulings. For all that, Rick Warren's invitation is yet more proof of Obama's shrewd opportunism, no surprise from a man whose ascent as a "brand" seems more like the execution of a clever business plan than a new social movement.

- Curtis P

December 23, 2008 at 10:47pm

The vast majority of Americans including Christians really don't care what consenting adults do sexually in their private life, but they will never support gay marriage nor do they support the campaign by gays and leftist to brainwash our youth that homosexuality is normal and that gays are oppressed. People that are gay have a sexual preference that is considered abnormal by most, and a sin by the major religons of the world. California passed a constitutional ammendment, get over it, you lost, end of story. No amount of frantic protest will change what most people believe and the attempt by CA AG Jerry Brown to call a constitutional ammendment unconstitutional is laughable. Gays cannot force their beliefs on the rest of society.

- Thomas

December 24, 2008 at 4:06am

Quick correction: Your article states that Rev. Lowery supports Gay Marriage. This is not true. During an appearance on MSNBC's show 1600 yesterday, he might it quite clear that he supports civil unions but does NOT support gay marriage.

- Hoosier Paul

December 24, 2008 at 9:16am

"Why must Warren be fumigated against, then?" I trust the author really meant fulminated, "to issue a thunderous verbal attack or denunciation". I doubt Rev. Warren has any body lice for which he needs fumigation.

- John

December 24, 2008 at 9:58am

Reader Koch seems to confuse our duty to respect the right of people to hold any opinion with respecting the opinions themselves. All opinions are not equal—some are reasoned, others are silly. Historically, nearly all the people held an opinion about something that was totally wrong, although they were quite sincere. We must judge opinions, and accord them respect or disrespect, by something different from popularity and sincerity—namely investigation, reason and the 3 great concepts of liberty, equality and justice (see Mortimer Adler's "Six Great Ideas" — not about gays but general principals of thought and reason). Our solution to issues relating to homosexuality, and our view of Obama’s selection of Warren, will depend on how we judge opinions, our own and others’.

- ChicagoLarry

December 24, 2008 at 10:35am

The problem with Obama's Warren pick has little to do with what the majority of the black community believes. Warren is a publicity-hound, the evangelical equivalent of Paris Hilton. Obama could have chosen any number of ministers--evangelicals even--who do or do not support gay marriage and gotten away with it. A good majority of evangelicals are "green" environmentalists, and therefore fit within the overall inclusiveness that Obama says he was trying to demonstrate. The problem with Warren is that he brings nothing new to the bigot table other than tone; but along with that inclusive, insightful "tone" comes something more insidious. His church website specifically indicated that gay people were not welcome to worship in his church (he has amended the wording on the site now that it was brought to national attnetion). He actively sought to take AWAY rights under prop 8 that gays already had. This is entirely different from a church leader who doesn't embrace homosexulaity, or even considers it a sinful choice. I ask one simple question: Would Obama invite a minister who vocalized on national television that the marriage between a black person and a white person is the equivalent of pederasty, incest, or beastiality? Just for fun, let's go one step further and pretend that the minister, while publicly denouncing marriage between blacks and whites, and banning them from his church, also actively supported a ballot initiative to overturn Loving v. Virgina. Question: Would Obama have chosen this person to give the invocation in the spirit of inclusiveness? Blacks may have issues with gays insisting their cause is a civil rights issue. But catering to such victimization in the black community doesn't advance the conversation. And while choosing Warren for such a high profile honor certainly has advanced the conversation, I have to wonder if that was really Obama's purpose? The inuaguration isn't he right venue and it isn't the right time. He could have invited Warrent to a roundtable discussion instead. Warren's invocation isn't just a prayer anymore; it's a slap in the face of millions of Americans who helped elect Obama. That can only be characterized as a calculated mistake, poor judgment, or both. I'm simply not convinced it was smart politics.

- Brian Reed

December 24, 2008 at 5:27pm

I take Rick Warren’s comments on various disapproved behaviors (plural marriage, etc.) to be simply a response to the arguments of many gay marriage advocates that a committed relationship deserves public and legal acknowledgement in a way that civil union does not achieve. Admittedly, in some of the examples he cites, the root of public support for legal censure seems tied to the tendentiousness of the ability to effectively “consent”. I believe that modern evangelicals (black and white) who condemn racial discrimination as evil do so not because it is believed that all social judgments are wrong but rather because one should “judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment” according to Jesus (i.e. judging based significant behaviors or apparent character rather than social status or man-made traditions). The viewpoint of the civil rights community was famously highlighted in Dr. King’s speech urging the country to judge not on the color of skin but content of character. The issue is not whether any distinction among relationships can be reflected in law – but rather what kinds of distinctions are rational and ethical. It would be helpful if the Prop 8 opponents would at least to some degree address Rick Warren’s points rather than only refer to him as a bigot for raising them.

- Steven K

December 26, 2008 at 2:28pm

It's possible to believe in equal treatment for gays through civil unions and still be against using the term "marriage" to describe such unions. That is what many religious people of good will believe, apparently including Obama.

- r-ennis

December 26, 2008 at 3:23pm

White, liberal supporters of gay marriage have failed repeatedly to grasp the myriad cultural differences between themselves and blacks. Evidently, according to a number of reader's comments on left leaning Web site, this inability to comprehend differences in cultural perspectives between most blacks and white, liberal gays also extends to blacks who are members of the LGBTQ community as well. T The black struggle to end racial discrimination and social injustice is inextricably linked to the Christian faith and various forms of Liberation Theology. Moreover, every AA or person of color who ever ascended to political or social prominence in Black America, including Barack Obama had to first win the approval and blessing of the Black Church. Most AA's are Christians. And many view the attacks against Rick Warren in particular and Christianity in general by white liberals as an attack against our faith and the Church. Moreover, the outrage by white liberals over black support of Prop 8 has exposed the existence of long standing racism against blacks by the white liberals. Many polls have concluded that, most blacks do not view gay marriage as a civil rights issue. It is viewed instead as a moral issue resulting from life style choices. There are 2 reasons for this. First, there isn't a single shred of scientific evidence that proves conclusively that genetics and or biology is responsible for homosexuality. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that social milieu, sexual behavior and temperamental and personality traits all contribute to the emergence of sexual preferences. Sexual behavior, like eating habits, stress and trauma have been scientifically proven to alter brain chemistry and neurological responses to stimuli. An example can be found in the cases of Pastor Donnie McClurkin and Congressman Mark Foley who cited being raped repeatedly during childhood as a cause of their homosexuality. While Black people are not monolythic there are issues that affect us all. One unfortunate reality is the disproportionate percentage of incarcerated black men in America's prisons and jails. Many black men engage in homosexual sex while in prison or jail and then choose hetersexual relationships when discharged. As a result, the fastest growing group of people with HIV and AIDS are blacks, especially black women. For many AA's homosexuality and gay marriage is a matter of choice and morality based on one's sexual preference not civil rights.

- Jezreel

December 26, 2008 at 11:54pm

"Why don't LGBT Americans deserve the same rights as others? Why would anyone petition the courts to nullify all those gay marriages?" The answer to your question is rather simple... The institution of marriage was ordained by Almighty God, between a man, a woman and the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual issue of bonding two souls together in Christ as with Christ and the Church. Marriage is a sacrificial, spiritual issue that will not work for the ungodly. It is not to be mocked by the ungodly or those who hate God. Homosexuality is a hate crime against Almighty God. Therefore, to allow the homosexual the legal right to make a mockery of the institution of marriage is to bring additional problems of judgment on this society along with the curse of the innocent blood (50,000,000) of our unborn children.

- jamesw

December 27, 2008 at 12:27pm

Respecting intolerance seems like a pretty undemocratic formula, causing a dilemma like permitting an electorate to vote away its freedom to vote. But maybe Warren's position is akin to those who would reserve the word "marriage" to heterosexual union, but not require any other sort of distinction. If true, then his view has more to do with cultural convention than denial of a right. Government should only recognize "civil unions" in any case and leave the naming of such unions to extralegal traditions and preferences. One other note: I believe McWhorter intends the word "fulminate" rather than "fumigate" in the next to the last paragraph. "Fulminate" means to speak harshly; "fumigate" means to expose to fumes for the purpose of extermination. My guess is that even those strongly opposed to Warren stop short of such a remedy.

- Phillip Pfaffman

December 28, 2008 at 4:53pm

That sounds just about right to me Thomas.

- lvh

January 2, 2009 at 6:48pm