In response to Stacey Jochimsen's letter (andquot;Prop. 8 un-American, wrong to take away minority's rights,andquot; Nov. 25), as a current resident of Crescent City, I confess to being one of the voters that saddened her/him.

I too am saddened over Prop. 8. I am saddened that it was even necessary. Exactly where in our Constitution does it express anything about the subject of marriage, per se?

The very flow of history tells the story. Marriage is between one man and one woman who vow to commit to lifelong fidelity to their beloved as a basis for creating a family of their unique genetic combination to the benefit of society and to the propagation of species. That is what marriage is. Period. Of course there are sometimes mitigating circumstances that preclude conception, but they are the exception.

Where the andquot;No on 8andquot; proponents have decided to radically alter that is where the problem has crept in. Simply put, they are not equipped to fit into the description of marriage, which is the joining together of two unlike elements (be they people, apples or oranges.) Try watering your flowers with a hose equipped with two male connections or establishing an electrical circuit with two like connectors. Marriage is always of two unlikes.

The letter-writer states it's okay to have faith in a god, with a little andquot;Gandquot; so long as you keep that faith to yourself. How can it be demanded that people keep their faith to themselves when there are unborn babies being snuffed by the millions within the womb or spectacles like the open air theatre of abomination on San Francisco's Folsom Street on public display?

Religion provides the moral compass by which a civilized society conducts itself. Religion has provided our once-fine nation the foundation upon which it was built. It appears that not a stone will be left unturned by the barbarians at the gate as our beautiful nation is pulled relentlessly into the sewer.

Dale L. Bohling

Crescent City