The state has laws against stealing, killing, lying, and adultery (especially in the military). Those are all moral laws.

It is in the state's or society's best interest to see that certain moral standards are met. Some could also argue that it is in our society's best interest to keep marriage reserved for the partnership of males with females.

I do favor the state allowing gays to enter into legal contracts for the purpose of visitation, wills, property, etc. I also believe gays should have the same rights and privileges in our society as anyone else, except for marriage.

Please explain what you mean when you say that "technically" two men "cannot be considered married" to each other even if the state legally recognizes it. Do you mean "spiritually" rather than technically? What matters to most gay people is that the state legally recognize their relationship. They generally don't care if Christians recognize it spiritually or not, because they don't believe Christians who oppose gay marriage are right anyway.

What I mean is that marriage is NOT a legal matter. The state made it a legal matter to "protect it", but you can not call white black, just like you can not call two man to be a married couple. It's our understanding of marriage that is screwed up and thus allows for such possibility. Then the reasoning is... only those people who STATE calls married are really married. In actuality... state has no spiritual say in who are married and who are not. It's God's say through the consent of the parents of the couple. This was always the case until very resent history.

Can you consider a couple in soviet Union for example to partake in a spiritual marriage when God is left out? What is the difference between them simply cohabitating with commitment to each other and calling themselves "married"? I guess that's my point. I'm wondering if there were any gay married couples before State took over the marriage... probably not... because you had to go through Church to earn that title.

PS. there are many moral laws that State ignores. Yes lying is punishable under oath, but it's not in reality... just like adultery is not legally punishable (only through a divorce attorney). Yes, state could contractually (when we agree so) rightfully take part in defending our lives... but it should not have any part in legislating morality. Then it becomes morality out of fear... and morality dictated by state. I.E. state says what's moral and what's not. It's my personal opinion I guess.

Well, the state cannot possibly enforce honesty in every instance. It naturally has to choose when it is in the state's interest to enforce it. Such as in cases of fraud and lying when under oath. It would drain the state's resources if it tried to enforce the issue of lying in all instances, especially when it comes to the politicians, sad to say.

Here is one such enforcement from today's news: EDGARTOWN, Mass. - A 60-year-old man was charged Friday with disorderly conduct for allegedly lying about seeing two great white sharks off a Martha Vineyard's beach, authorities said.

I agree with much of the rest of your post.

Can you imagine the State following the likes of Bill Clinton around as a requirement of his probation of Federal Charges.

If lying would be illegal, then it would be illegal to be a politician :)... so it's a self preservation interest . j/k but I'm sure there's truth in there somewhere.

Not that state can't legislate morality... it certainly does and it can. The problem with it is not the danger of the Mark of the Beast, but the fact that the State now dictates what is moral and what is not. Moral becomes legal, and immoral becomes what is illegal. Thus it creates wrong view of morality in minds of people. Thus many view and worship state as a god, with flag for a cross, pledge for prayer, anthem for a hymn and constitution for the Bible. It's something for them to believe in.
The truth of the matter is that a state is imaginary construct... it's not something that naturally exists or was created by God. It's something men created for idea of "security" and "comfort"... an emergency exits on the air place flying 30k feet in the air. That's why the borders are drawn along the rivers and oceans. This is not the way the world was created and not the way it's supposed to be. Yes, we are indoctrinated that this is the way the things are ought to be, but they will not be this way on the new Earth. So, when approaching the issue of state, I share the views of the people who founded this one.... The government is the best one, which governs the least. Yet somehow we just abandoned the principle and accept by default that people really have no choice in the matter. Nobody asks you whether you'd like the things the way these are, the state assumes that you enter into contract (agreement) with it by being born, and thus you are automatically a subject. The choice is to submit, or to expatriate to a country with same or worse order (once you get permission to do so of course)... or suffer the consequences. What exactly is free in such freedom? Freedom to refuse?