It's a myth that there are absolute standards for right and wrong. Standards change with time. The standards of 1776 were not the same as the standards of 1876, 1976 or even today. Standards are relative to one's personal POV. How can you even begin to debate that fact?
It appears that you're only issue with same sex marriage is semantics. Civil Union vs Marriage. You call marriage a "spiritual issue" yet half of marriages take place in a court house performed by a JOP. Are those "spiritual"? I couldn't care less what you call it. The word "marriage" is a homonym. You, your church and others can speak about what it means in religious and/or spiritual terms. But in the US marriage is also a legal status that has nothing to do with any religious context. Atheist get married as do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Scientologist... As I recall the only push-back to using the Civil Union moniker was that thousands upon thousands of pages of contracts and laws refer to "marriage" and the risk, not to mention the cost...to changing all of those documents so that it guaranteed there was no legal difference was overwhelming.
There are no churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages. Hell, churches refuse to marry people all the time. My wife was raised Catholic and her first husband Methodist. The Catholic church refused to marry them because he wouldn't convert so they got married in the Methodist church. I personally know several same sex couples that have been married and all but one did so at the court house. The other was married at the UCC church which was one of the first to openly accept gays and ordains openly gay ministers. I agree that businesses that don't want to perform services like bake cakes shouldn't have to do so. I also understand that is a slippery slope. Once you allow discrimination how far do you let it go? Do you allow a restaurant to put up a "Whites Only" sign? Can I pay women or blacks one thing and white males another? I've had people answer that question "Yes"...say that if they want to give up that business then that's on them. So what about the little town that may have no black families or very few. There isn't really much of a price to be paid.
So you want to raise taxes on 90-95% of Americans... flat taxes have been considered in the past and the rate of 17% has been used as the revenue neutral rate that would be required. The chart below shows what people currently pay.
I personally believe that tax rates are pretty irrelevant. The cost of taxes gets "built in" to the price of labor. My proof of this is the fact that jobs in higher taxed states generally pay more than jobs in lower taxed states and where they don't the price of goods get inflated to consume those additional $$. Tax rates have risen and dropped yet the relative spread between professions remains the same. As for "eliminating waste"...easier said than done. I've worked in the private sector for close to 40 years and have seen a lot of what I would consider waste. I've also seen dozens of waste cutting efforts and frankly most are more bark than bite. Efforts made to cut waste result in waste... It's easy to spot waste but not so easy to prevent it. Most of it didn't start out as waste.
Moving on to Israel... you didn't answer my question...I wonder why?
BHO gave no "support" to Iran, they were trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. We gave back to them some of the billions we have frozen in US banks. BHO also signed a deal to guarantee Israel $38 Billion over 10 years. We give more direct aid to Israel than any other nation. As you said about other trade deals...the US has to do what's in its best interest and sometimes Israel might not like it. Israel is also illegally and against agreements that it has signed continues to take privately held property from Palestinians to open settlements on the West Bank as we may grumble but take no actions. Might makes right I guess in your eyes. But puh---leeeze don't try to say that "liberals don't support Israel". I love and support my children but I tell them when I think they've messed up.
ram, as an educator you sure don't seem to have learned a lot sometimes. Welfare hasn't always existed but poverty has. The hills and hollers of Appalachia were in much worse shape pre War-on-Poverty days. Are there some people that abuse the system? Of course. Problem being that it costs more to find and weed out those few abusers than you would save by doing so. Go talk to anyone who has made efforts to find abusers. You also have to weigh the value of those you truly help against those as you believe are hurt. Those that you claim are dependent...there is zero evidence that if you took away their benefits that they would do any differently. People used to starve to death, people lived in absolute squalor. It was much more common to have malnourished children... is that what you prefer? And who is getting $600??? The benefit is about $1.40 per person per meal so $600 would require 4 people...most likely a mother and 3 kids. What's childcare going to cost her so she can work? My son has a 4 month old and is having to pay $15/hr to get someone...which was less expensive than the $250-$300/wk he would have to pay to get daycare. Not sure when the last time you were in the daycare market but that's currently what it costs. I recall we paid about $40/week when mine were little.
That's all I got time for, for now.