..."To lose the battle here would only broaden the seismic shift in the culture and help to ensure that the dismantling of the family continues.”

And in all earnestness I have to ask, what exactly is he so very afraid of? 

How will two men marrying and raising children dismantle Mr. Carlson’s family in any way? 

Why is there so much fear about families that might look differently than his?  Why are our gay families of less value to him and the Baptists?  What makes a family?  Who gets to decide?  Mr. Carlson?  What makes a home?  Why is Mr. Carlson’s home valid and mine invalid? 

Why is there all this fear about people loving and having homes that might not fit the SBC model? 

How will gay marriage affect the SBC? 

How many gay married couples with children does Mr. Carlson personally know?  I imagine not many.

..."permitting same sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite sex couples of any right and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage"…

the opinion goes on to explain that the obligations and benefits of marriage apply equally in both situations ....
moreover…

...."retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite sex couples.”

...."an official view” that gay couples and families are of “lesser stature than comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples”....

...and finally that by retaining marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples may have the effect of perpetuating the premise....

.....“now emphatically rejected” by California “that gay individuals and same sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens’ who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite sex couples.”....

The court clearly states the benefit to society that marriage affords both same sex and opposite sex couples.

For example the financial benefit to spouses when one partner becomes unemployed or disabled is beneficial to society by keeping people out of the social services network, the security or a loving home when one partner becomes ill can prevent people from losing homes and becoming indigent, the added stability and love of a two parent home when raising children benefit society by raising more solid children, all these are beneficial to society and the families enjoined in those relationships.

These examples plus many others are cited by the justices in the opinion as to why same sex marriage is beneficial to society.

I can’t help but think of some of CS Lewis’ thoughts in Mere Christianity:

People say, “The Church ought to give us a lead.” That is true if they mean it in the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the Church they ought to mean the whole body of practising Christians…

If that happened...then we should find the Christian solution for our own social problems pretty quickly…

But, of course, when they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to put out a political programme. That is silly…

The clergy are those particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which they have not been trained. The job is really on us, on the laymen…

(Pardon the brief excerpts, tight on space!)

-Respectfully, spelling correctly is the beginning of individuals being willing to take someone seriously. I believe you mean “argument” and “societal,” respectively.
-I find the content inherently problematic, and here’s why:

1) Your argument is contradictory. You are trying to argue that marriage (between a man/woman, in your case) promotes stability within a society, it “benefits” society. Lesbian and Gay individuals are only slowly being able to legally enter into such unions to promote stability in society. Essentially, we cannot benefit society “legally” if we are not given the chance;

Also, your argument is logically unsound. You state “This ruling was the court redefining marriage to something that it has never been.” If we were to apply this severely flawed attempt at logic to other civil rights cases we would still have slavery, women would be property, and only white, land-owning men would be allowed to vote.

...and I wholeheartedly agree...the court found that the majority of public opinion can be wrong (as in Jim Crow)

they note changing public opinion on domestic partnerships and civil unions, which basically function as marital contracts therefore they should be called marriages because calling it something else perpetuates a negative stereotype about gay relationships and calls to question their validity.

How will gay marriage undermine other people’s marriage?  The court found that it in no way affects opposite sex marriage so what do people fear about gay marriage?

Surely by now you know that Christians base their opinions and beliefs on Biblical principles and ideals. With this said, our opposition to the Courts decision should come to no surprise to you.

Lets make a broader statement, people(whether publicly or privately) can make wrong decisions. This decision is in opposition to our beliefs on marriage. We don’t hold Judges opinions higher than anyone else’s, we hold the validity of their decision in comparison to scripture higher when such case arises. So we believe that the Judges opinions are wrong at times, because we see that they oppose Biblical standards and truths. So no matter how articulated their opinions are, they still stand in opposition to our views.  That doesn’t answer a question but I hope articulates clearly that no matter what the courts reasoning is, this decision will forever stand in opposition.

As to your question, “How long did the courts research & investigate?” First the courts decide cases based on precedent so their research goes back through the history of court proceedings, sometimes even citing cases from other eras in time, however, in this particular case the court dealt namely with cases in the U.S. system.

The court didn’t adjudicate this case on religious tenets but rather upon civil liberty and equality issues.  They found…

“Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” “An individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

-I agree. However, we didn’t undergo multiple decades (or even a century) of social science research to determine the individual and societal effects of ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, and putting an end to racial segregation in our schools (which was, by the way, a *judicial* decision).

-So work equally hard to propose and pass a constitutional amendment against heterosexual sex outside of marriage and institute so-called “church discipline” as indiscriminately against those who would engage in such activities as those who would be involved in same-sex (sexual) relationships. Christian immorality results, I would argue, from cherry-picking Biblical verses/passages in order to further solidify fear and abhorrence of particular minority groups.