Your argument is good, there is a case to be made for a federal government that is becoming more powerful as time passes. I think you chose some terrible examples though.

For starters, the supreme court legalizing gay marriage is not an act that reduces the liberty of the nation, because gay people getting married simply doesn't affect anyone that disagrees with it in a meaningful way. No one dies, no one is worse off, because gay people can have a ceremony and receive a certificate and benefits from the state. Also, no one is forcing catholic priests or the like to marry gay people. In terms of individual liberties, the supreme court decision expanded them in the most literal sense - by increasing the amount of people able to make a certain decision at their pleasure.

Secondly, climate change is real. It exists, and there is a scientific consensus that it is anthropogenic. If you accept that point, which the federal government of the US does, and which has the support of the entire scientific community, then weighing the outcomes of "sea levels rise and suddenly Florida/Louisiana/Texas/etc. are facing catastrophe" vs. "my fuel is more expensive it's harder to get around and engage in commerce" becomes less about authoritarianism and more about the fact that on a national level, the most effective regulating force is the federal government and that unimpeded climate change results in your negative scenario anyway, among other things.

Views that differ from the acceptable narrative, even well-established scientific views, are verboten and those who express those views are heretics.

I just want to address the scientific views part. Anyone has the right to hold whatever views they choose, and it's unfortunate that you have had, or have seen, personal attacks resulting from differing views. In most cases, that is inexcusable (to a reasonable degree, ie someone has the view they can kill whomever they want is not acceptable). In cases of science, then it is more clear cut. If you believe in homeopathy, you're ignorant. If you believe evolution is false, you're ignorant. If you believe nuclear fusion is impossible, you're ignorant. It's a 'definitional' assessment in those cases, and should be met with education. My main point here is don't confuse personal views with objectively incorrect anti-scientific ones, I think it weakens your argument here. Hard sciences don't have a liberal bias. Also don't forget that republicans refuse to acknowledge climate change in the house and senate, and they got elected, so they haven't necessarily been shouted down.

Thirdly, unions don't exist because they feel "the individual is incapable of making 'correct choices' and needs to be told what to do by the collective will of the organization." That may be the unfortunate end result of some unions, but the reason they exist is to allow labourers to bargain collectively against their employers. Ideally what they bargain for is decided by the members, and there are certainly still unions today that meet and make decisions with their members. So they don't exist for the reason you said. Don't know a whole lot about BLM or Greenpeace.