She has some good points, and I think in general she is right: we have already lost this argument. But as to the notion that we lost it much earlier because we didn't fight sexual promiscuity, etc., well, no. That battle has been fought . . . and also lost. And the reason has always been, in each case, you are arguing a visible, tangible "right" (i.e., people getting divorced because they don't love each other, homosexuals bonding) vs. an invisible, intangible right.
In other words, while it is easy to point to people who say they "can't get married" and photograph them and interview them, it's very hard to show that erosion of religious liberty at the other end. People will say, "Can't you still go to church?" This less tangible erosion only becomes apparent when, as in Sweden, you end up throwing a preacher in jail because he won't accept homosexual marriage.
Moreover, couched in the entire proto-feminist "bullying" language, it's a nearly impossible battle to win in the public square. Any opposition is couched in the language of "bullying" helpless same-sex marriage advocates.
Her's is an interesting perspective. There has been other discussion lately suggesting that churches require their members to formally accept a list of do's and dont's. The thinking is that the church can defend itself more successfully if it is ever sued for denying anyone access to its facilities or rites if it denies them consistently.
Go missionary or go Amish seem to be the only two viable strategies.