Austin, I don't see that the Bible gives a husband a "trump card" to get his own way-- though I appreciate that, since you believe it does give you one, you exercise it with "fear."  That said, in the situation you describe, I think my husband and I would have handled it just as you did-- except that we wouldn't have said it was because he was the male; rather that it was because he was the one who believed he had a clear leading from the Holy Spirit.  Conversely, if I had been the one with a clear leading from the Holy Spirit, and my husband was uncertain, he would have gone along with me, trusting my relationship with God as I trust his.  We believe that is what "submit to one another" in Eph. 5:21 is all about.

If we had a situation (which has never arisen) where I felt strongly led in one direction and he felt strongly led in the opposite (not just uncertain), then we would pray some more and not act until we were sure why we felt so differently and what could be done about it.  We simply don't believe one spouse has a God-given right to override the other, however carefully and fearfully.   However, when a couple does believe the husband has that right, it's wonderful when he is as careful as you are.  When he is not, the wife is up a creek without a paddle.  Many wives find themselves in this situation when a husband is not mature enough to handle the power the church tells the wife she is required by God to give him.   

I think the Holy Spirit, through Paul, was leading first-century Christian marriages in the direction of empowering wives who had been little more than slaves, to be raised up to be beside their husbands.  We misunderstand that now because our marriages start out looking very different.  We have to be careful not to go backwards towards that first-century norm, thinking that that culture is endorsed by God simply because it's the culture first-century Christians had to live with. 

With regards to church leadership, the New Testament shows that a plurality of leaders was the norm in the early church, so I don't think it's a good idea to have one sole person, man or woman, leading the congregation.  In short, I think leadership by consensus is not only <i>not</i> inherently a failure, but is anticipated and expected (under the leadership of the Holy Spirit) by the NT, and there's no reason why one person should be able to impose his or her will over the whole congregation. 

 However, if a church decision were going to be made that affected one church leader's family, and not any other family in the church, I think it becomes a family matter and not a church matter and is for the affected family to decide.  If it affects all families in the church, then the church leaders should take that into consideration but not allow one family more say than another in the congregation just because they're the family of a church leader.