In response to the March 8 letter “Photo of gay kiss over the top”: The author needs to take a step into the 21st century. Yes, the Marine went a bit over by straddling his partner. He said his superiors told him that was out of line. He admits that was a bit much but he was excited to see his significant other. If heterosexual couples can hug and kiss when they return from deployment, why can’t homosexuals? I would have been uncomfortable if that had been a heterosexual or homosexual couple.

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexuals are in the military. I don’t know where the author gets his “facts” about the “vast majority of the military” [not supporting homosexuality in the military] but obviously the “vast majority” doesn’t care. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has been repealed for six months now. Deal with it.

I thought we were done with this argument. The author is a soldier first, not a Christian. If he wants to be a Christian soldier, he should go join a “Christian” army. Adultery also goes against the faith of Christians and the military, but it happens. I don’t see anyone railing on about that.

Marriage started out as a means of transferring money, power, land and titles. That is it. I don’t know where people get the idea marriage started out for “love.” I’m a “non-Christian” and I disagree with the statement made by the author about marriage.

We servicemembers don’t take an oath to any god — we take an oath to protect the Constitution, to follow legal orders and abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Being homosexual is no longer against the rules. If anyone — homosexual or heterosexual — violates the regulation on public displays of affection then, as a noncommissioned officer, you correct them. You do not; however, let your personal beliefs interfere with your duties as a soldier and leader.

Staff Sgt. Kelly Calder

Fort Riley, Kan.

Conduct in photo against regs

The March 4 photo in the Mideast and Pacific editions of the homosexual Marine and his partner kissing (“Gay Marine’s homecoming kiss gets worldwide notice,” article) was offensive to me and it broke the regulations regarding public displays of affection. I don’t understand why this picture was printed as a celebration and not as an example of actionable breach of regulations.

Recently a soldier showed up at a political event in uniform, and that made the front page. That photo was pointed out as an example of failure to obey regulations along with the promise of upcoming punishment. Why was the March 4 photo not given the same treatment?

People want the same rights, but these rights come with the same responsibilities.

Theresa Almeida

Stuttgart, Germany

Migrated