What's Gov. got to do with it?
There's a problem with the statement that "marriage is love." The problem is that it is fallacious.

I do not support the unequal treatment of gays, but I also do not support the requirement of government sanction for marriage — for either gays or straights.

. . . in case you were wondering why I don't post this in my LJ.

I think, actually, that pockettheroach may have said it best as regards this meme in particular, though Rachel Mills asks all the right questions as regards the issue of gay marriage as a whole.
Re: What's Gov. got to do with it?
I agree that government should not be sanctioning marriage. However, we have a huge body of law that gives special rights to married couples. Given that these special rights are not going to be removed any time soon, I think an easier case can be made that discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation is wrong.

The "Marriage is Love" line was, of course, copied directly from the source. However, I don't think it's fair to try and read three words as a cogent argument. Instead, looking beyond that we see the real argument: if we're going to legally sanction marriage, we cheapen the institution by reducing it to a petty argument over anatomy. If people love one another, that should be enough.

Of course, this then starts to beg the question "why limit marriage to two people?" That's when things start to break down and we see the real problems with legal sanction of marriage. Also, I could marry a female US citizen for financial reasons (it's illegal to do that if she's not a US citizen.)

And while we're at it, we have to ask "what's a man?" "What's a woman?" If it's genetic, a sex-change can screw things up. If it's anatomic, a sex-change can screw things up. If you get a sex-change after your marriage, is the government going to step in and break up your possibly happy home? And will people who are born hermaphrodites be forbidden to marry? It's all silly and ridiculous, but the tremendous expense of going through all laws in the US and removing references to marriage could be quite problematic.
Re: What's Gov. got to do with it?
It almost certainly would be problematic. Convenience doesn't dictate my stance on the matter, though.

I'll tell anyone that will listen that as long as marriage requires legal sanction gays should not be treated any differently from the way straight couples are treated when it comes to getting a marriage license. I'm not going to tell anyone that marriage is love, however.
Re: What's Gov. got to do with it?
Oooo! Transsexuals, I didn't think about that!

LOL *looks dumb*