The concept of holy matrimony probably seems a long way away for many college students, but what if there wasn’t even a possibility of marriage to imagine?

For many same sex couples, the idea of getting married is something that lies in the fated hands of time. For those individuals, a traditional wedding might not even be an option while gay marriage is still banned in so many states.

Recently, California overturned its same sex constitution, changing the customary nouns of bride and groom to more gender-neutral phrases – “Party A” and “Party B” – on marriage licenses. The change wasn’t fueled solely by opposite-sex couples – in fact, many same-sex couples protested the new words, claiming they wanted to be defined just as male-female couples would on their wedding day.

Not to get into politics, but here is yet another issue that is desiderative of change. What our country needs now more than ever is for people to accept one another and be proactive in encouraging acceptance.

In this case, society requires a non-traditional wakeup call for everyone who doesn’t see that same-sex marriage isn’t a sin, it isn’t harming anyone and it definitely shouldn’t be against the law. I thought laws protected our rights and outlawed crime, not dictated the way we run our lives.

Something more promising is the fact that California has come up with an alternative idea for this situation. They proposed a marriage ballot in which there would be two spots, where applicants could check the respected “First and Second Person Data.”

Included in this would be a box where the couples could check either the word “bride” or “groom.” This scenario allows couples to check two of the same boxes or two opposite boxes, depending on their choice. However, this idea still has to be passed by California voters in November, in which case it could possibly become overruled.

The ballot in California with simply “Party A” and “Party B” isn’t exactly inviting jargon for couples to be classified by on their wedding day. It desensitizes the special bond being celebrated, and makes the couple seem formally regulated. This isn’t a debate after all, this is two people’s wedding day – and for the law to make it so unappealing is something wrong on its own.

The fact of the matter is, marriage itself is a choice, so why does sex, an ascribed status, have the ruling hand in the situation? We don’t have any more control over our gender than we do our shoe size, so why couples in love are discriminated against makes no sense whatsoever.

Same-sex couples are a minority in our country’s population, and making them feel outlawed by the government is just more prejudice. Just because our culture has deemed “kissing the bride” an occurrence between a man and a woman doesn’t mean that it has to remain that way.

Same-sex couples should have the right to be called the bride and groom just as opposite-sex couples. Creating euphemisms on a marriage license only fuels the fire of discrimination against gay people. Opposite-sex couples shouldn’t have to be called “Party A” or “Party B” either.

On the other hand, was changing the license worth it? Personally, I believe it was. Gay marriage had finally become accepted in the California law, and because of protests about the wording, it is now precariously dangling on the precipice of existing at all.

Wouldn’t you rather have everything you wanted than nothing at all? For same-sex and opposite-sex couples, satisfaction and obtaining their rights should come hand-in-hand. And the only way to be able to feel that complete contentment is to be able to look their spouse in the eyes and say “I Do” whether they’re the bride, the groom or both.

Todd is a freshman print journalism major and guest columnist for The Spectator.