#Fact 1: The legislation is put in place to guarantee equal social and federal rights for Americans engaged in a marriage or civil union constituting of two people of the same sex. This means that the legislation allows these people to enjoy the same insurance and social security benefits which people who are engaged in a marriage or civil union consisting of one man and one woman enjoy. This new legislation also ensures that people in same-sex marriages now lie within the same scope of laws that apply to family units which were formed by opposite-sex spouses. All laws relating to financial aid eligibility, immigration, bankruptcy, taxes, (basically all federal purposes), are now made available to same-sex spouses. Therefore, no, granting the same rights to these people wouldn't discount the existing rights of the people engaged in opposite-sex marriages. Politically speaking, this ruling would not disrupt or pose as a threat to democracy, because that is not the issue at hand. The ruling only serves to protect the rights of same-sex couples, and answer the legal question as to whether or not the Constitution protects the right for same-sex couples to marry, or form a civil union, and deems it illegal for members of same-sex marriages to be subject to any form of discrimination in terms of social and federal rights. It does NOT lend them additional voting rights, or impose unnecessary political opinions on, or legally allow them to vilify opposite-sex spouses. 

#Fact 2: The new legislation functions on the basis of mutual agreement and consent to the civil union or marriage, by the two parties involved. This is exactly the same as how opposite-sex marriages, as stated in the Defense of Marriage Act, are deemed legal in the eyes of the Constitution aka eligible for marriage licenses.  Other forms of sexual or non-sexual relations such as pedophilia, zoophilia, paraphilia and incubus/succubus are unable to fall under the same premise of legal judgment because there exists no way to prove whether or not the other party is consensual towards the civil union they are being "engaged" in. Also, they are not, in legal terms, able to be guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, it is completely beyond reason to compare these alternate relations to a same-sex marriage.

#Fact 3: Religious liberty is protected by the First Amendment, and this legislation has nothing to do with that. Religious organizations are still guaranteed protection and definitive rights to continue to teach the principles that are essential to their faith, whether or not they are for, or against the formation of same-sex marriages.

This post is just meant to clear up some confusion, not to start a fight or impose beliefs. You're free to stand for anything you want, but be sure to back up your opinions with stuff other than ignorance and bigotry.