i was very surprised that social conservatives did not latch on to the vermont solution as a good compromise. as you say, it won't be long before they are not in a position to compromise. i think it exposes the meanness of some in that group that they are not content to simply perserve their socio-religious institution, but are bent on keeping gays a stigmatized and even criminalized underclass.
That is certainly part of it but those are just the angry sqeeky wheel of a larger group. Many of them are far more forward thinking than that. Over the past several years I have given more thought to their arguments about various issues without dismissing them out of hand.
I expect the view point will be that gays won't be satisfied with a separate definition of marriage. They are ultimately drive by the desire for acceptance and until they can literally put on a tux and white dress, order wedding cake etc, they won't be satisfied. They will always think that if only they can have the same marriage that hetero's have they will be fully accepted.
So, the social conservative may be saying that, heck, if they won't stop until its fully the same marriage then why not draw the line in the sand right now.
So, no. I disagree that the main thrust of social conservatives is based on meanness. Rather, its based on looking at the progression of the past and taking it to its logical extension.
My personal view is that, done right, the conservatives can take the energy of this movement and redirect it in a way that takes away many of the gay arguments of equality and at the same time make their case for keeping a heterosexual marriage "sacred" (set apart). The danger that the social conservatives are trying to avoid is coming anyway so they are better off leading the parade.