The California Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage kicked in this week, and thousands of couples went to government offices in towns and cities across the state to receive licenses.

As important as this milestone is, there is something grating about the term "same-sex marriage." It's the label du jour, and it's getting old quickly.

It's the use of same-sex that has grown tiresome. It sounds clinical - like genetically-altered vegetables.

People need some way of explaining these things, without a doubt. And it has to be clear and simple enough for everyone to understand.

But there's also something demeaning about it.

Older gays and lesbians remember the days of having "roommates." That was the label back in the 1950's.

But it didn't work that well. It certainly didn't explain anything. Being college roomies worked briefly, but why would two men still be roommates in their 30's and 40's?

In the 80's, the term was "partner" - my partner this or my partner that. But that didn't work, either. It sounded a bit like a business arrangement.

And in the 90's, it was "lover." After coping with a decade of AIDS, there was something defiant, even liberating about being someone's lover.

Things may change again this fall. There's already movement to amend the State Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

If conservatives get their way, we may have to dust off one of the old terms.

If the ruling stands, maybe we'll finally be done with labels.