Ah, this article warms my bitter, jaded heart!
You see, I was an English Lit major and all I ever heard was deconstructionist crap. To believe that the meaning of the text has no relation whatsoever to the author always eluded me. Sure, it's fun to dream up and discuss all sorts of possible meanings--and it is pretty much all you do when the author isn't around to refute you. Add to that a revisionist climate (can happen at any point, but it is all too common to reshape literature in our image) and most of my college career was spent arguing over points or listening to points that didn't make sense.
Shakespeare dies a million deaths each day as colleges around the world talk about what it means :-) 
As I read this author's angst over finding out that Card does not only not believe like her, but disagrees violently on the fundementals, I get a warped sense of satisfaction as she struggles over her love of his books. I feel justified for all my railing against my profs that what the author intended matters.
Why? Because she will never read Ender's Game the same way again. The fact that Card is, as she describes him, a pig, a jerk, and a homophobe will poison the pages. Hidden themes or realities she overlooked will leap out of every page. Ender's Game will probably be ruined for her, much like a child who delighted in Santa Claus.
And that is actually quite sad--I feel for her, as I have had my own similar experiences. But it proves why deconstructionist approaches are such crap. It's not like she is having an intellectual crisis; she states over and over again that she can handle him not agreeing with her. But she is lying to herself: she feels betrayed, let down, shocked, dismayed. It matters deeply that the author does not agree with her perception of his work. No matter how much she denies it, the fact that OSC is a homophobe has totally ruined Ender's Game for her.
I.e. for the her (and for everyone, I would suggest), it matters a great deal what the author intended and what she thinks he intended. Especially when the author is "wrong" on the fundamentals, whatever they might be (in this case violence and homosexuality). She cannot reconcile her original reading with her new knowledge of the author.
On a side note, when I found out that OSC was a devout mormon, it changed his books for me forever. While he does not say his books are mormonist per se, one versed in mormonism can see it through out the books (especially the Homecoming series, which is sci-fized mormonism). I still love his books, but now I can see more plainly his intentions. Whereas I originally thought, "That's an odd way of putting it," I now can see plainly it is his personal beliefs coming through. But that is true of all writers to some degree.
 Note: I would give certain forms of literature more license to impact more diversely than the author intended. But I still believe that meaning or intentions should be drawn from intent. How literature impacts you or what it makes you think about is fair game: Shakespeare's use of swords can remind you of feminist critics about phalliv imagery, but that does not imply that Shakespeare intended that meaning ;-)
Veritas otium parit. --Terence