It’s those like Mrs. Parker who step into the debate and lose it for us. By using our opponent’s language (”redefining marriage”), she concedes, adopts, and endorses our opponent’s fundamental premise (that marriage is capable of redefinition) - the one on which the entire debate rests.
Once she has conceded that marriage is defined and can therefore be redefined by man, her final redoubt is “tradition”. (And how’s that going to sell in American culture, hmm?)
She should’ve quoted Lincoln and called it a day. She’d have done less damage to marriage that way.
I think you need to read the column through again and if necessary several time, because she is not saying what you believe she is.