I don’t see drug legalization as an issue that’s going to build a governing coalition - that’s one of those “agree to disagree” issues.
“Prohibition on gambling”? I’m not aware of any movement to outlaw Vegas, Atlantic City, etc. This is not some make-or-break issue for the “religious right”.
“Condemnation of consenting adults’ private sexual behavior” - Do you have a problem with this as long as it doesn’t resort to the tools of government?
Government-funded “faith based initiatives” were & are a bad idea, and believe it or not - the non-monolithic “religious right” does not have any sort of principled devotion to this idea.
I admire your devotion to libertarian principles, but many of the issues you raised are red herrings. For example, questioning and speaking against the morality of homosexual behavior is not the same as using government to outlaw it. And I don’t know any serious person who advocates the latter.
The case for limited government won’t be won by equating the church and religious community’s powerful pulpit for free moral suasion with government prohibitions. If abandoning the latter entails abandoning the former, what you have is the Libertarian party that won 0.4% in the recent election.
Above all, Ben, I love you.
Having said that: Drugs - no, the issue is not one that is "going to build a governing coalition." That is not my concern. My concern is freedom and smaller government (they are largely the same thing). Joining a coalition that is opposed to freedom and smaller government is complicity in statism.
Gambling - yes, there are a places that allow gambling. They are in the minority, and the moral police have succeeded in preventing people from making their own choices throughout most of the country, including the ban on internet poker. That is an illegitimate use of government force, imposed by those in favor of state power over individual freedom.
Banning gay marriage is far more than questioning the morality of homosexuality. Banning homosexuals from adopting children is far more than the use of a bully pulpit. Both use the force of government to enforce a moral code. As a libertarian, I see no role for the government in marriage between heterosexuals, either, but if the government is going to mandate marriage licenses, discriminating on who gets them is an illegitimate use of power. Marriage is between two people and their god. Where does the state come in? What role does it play? Does the state make a sacred commitment between two people more sacred? I think not. Once God has blessed a union, is the state's blessing needed? Marriage licenses, and thereby state involvement in a private, religious ceremony, came about so the state could keep the races from mixing. The state has no legitimate interest in the recognition of marriage.
I'm a Southern Baptist, and grew up going to Sunday School, church, and Wednesday night fellowship. In my religious education, I have not been made aware of a single instance when Jesus advocated the use of government power to enforce morals. Jesus spread morality via example, teaching and love. Jesus did not spread morality via force. Indeed, spreading morality via force is an absurd notion, yet one that groups like Focus on the Family insist on pushing.