I don't think the results they were trying to achieve were "a setback for human rights." They're a non-profit investing their time and money to try to make the world a better place. There is disagreement on what makes for a better place, but no one believes setting back human rights makes the world better. In their words, the results they want to achieve are to protect the family by:

- preserving and promoting traditional marriage;

- safeguarding parental rights;

- defending human life;

- upholding religious liberty; and

- protecting the health and innocence of children

I would guess their intended goal here aligned most with "preserving and promoting traditional marriage." Do you think they

1. made progress in this direction, winning hearts and minds? or

2. made progress in making people who hold these views look like fascist, extremist wackos everyone normal wants to distance themselves from?

Before things like this, a person could hold views like "sex is for having babies" or "the family unit is for the purpose of raising kids" and be seen as reasonable. There is an ideal of having healthy, happy families which consist of two parents, married for life, with a group of kids. It wasn't viewed as a crazy ideal until things like this began. Once things like this started happening, by expressing anything even closely aligned, one risks being viewed as a hateful bigot.

This video is a nice guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

As a footnote, advancing the opposition's agenda this way happens just as much on the liberal side. I live in a far left-wing city which constantly passes stupid laws designed to send left-leaning messages which do an incredible amount to discredit the left and push the nation right.