and “ego-feeding articles” and “grandstanding”: did such come from Dan? It was Shane, not Dan, who did the writing, right?

Absolutely.  I see Shane’s actions as more problematic than Cathy’s in this latest development — we know Cathy’s views and I see nothing new in his wanting to curb the defections on college campuses.  But Shane should have known better.  Again, seven months is not long enough to know anything about Cathy’s motivations or sincerity, particularly given what we know of his history.  And Cathy letting him view some 990s which are available to the public on demand anyway seems to have made quite an impression on Shane, as though Cathy was trusting him with secret knowledge.
People who are serious about this kind of work take years to build a private relationship, one built on something more than the emotion of the moment.  After this, I think Shane should think long and hard about stepping down from his position, as his judgment is compromised. I have called out ex-gay ministries on their shallow “apologies” and so it is only fair I do the same here.
I grant that the average person reading about this in passing might come to see it as a heart-warming, meeting of mind and soul — and many have. But honestly, if we peak behind the curtain on this one there is little to redeem the exercise.  and if we heap praise on these self-congratulatory exercises, what does that do to the real bridge-building work in comparison?  Doesn’t it cheapen that?

And frankly, “hateful” is certainly in the ear of the beholder. I found nothing in Dan’s comments that deserve that label.

Hate?  You bet.  Cathy made it clear that he was not just “wrestling with his understanding of scripture.”  He funded groups which deceived people into believing they not only could but should “change their sexual orientation.”  He also contributed to groups which demean an entire demographic with the worst kind of lies, and try to limit the rights of gays and lesbians through rule of law, all in the name of God.  This is not a stupid man.  If he had listened to his humanity, he would never have sent a dime to those groups.  So yes, when Cathy says what he said on the radio, I call it hatred.  When he sends money to others to do the dirty work, I call that hatred. 
And I also have no sympathy for those who impose their interpretation of scripture — any scripture — on the civil rights of the individual.  No one is or will be asking any church to “redefine” their definition of marriage, no more than the RCC is forced to marry divorced couples, or a Synagogue interfaith couples, or for that matter any pastor to marry any couple which he or she doesn’t feel is ready.  The truth is this has nothing to do with what any scripture says, that is just a pretense. 
If Cathy or anyone else said, “look, my understanding of my faith tells me that our church cannot sanction a same-sex union, but this is the Untied States and if another faith wishes to do so, or if a same-sex couple wishes to be married under civil law, that is only fair and should not be denied, particularly in light of the empirical evidence concerning homosexuality,” well we would have no argument.
But when people like Cathy pour money into massive efforts to deny my right to live with my spouse with some semblance of dignity and the same incentives to be a productive, monogamous couple and good citizens as any other married couple, that is hatred.  You may not like the sound of it, but that’s what it is.  And it does not come from a simple difference of opinion, it comes from the arrogance to think that my wanting those aforementioned rights is itself arrogant.