This just in ....

... from Father de Souza's recent column on SSM:

"[W]hy shouldn't [...] marital promises mean what they say? Namely, that the bond of permanence cannot be broken unless the terms of the (civil) marriage contract have themselves been broken, or that the parties mutually agree to break the contract? Why shouldn't marital contracts be at least as strong as, say, the contract to renovate the kitchen, where one party cannot unilaterally break it?

"Such reforms are hardly on the political agenda, but they should have the support of those who argued so passionately that marriage needed to be radically changed to accommodate homosexuals. If that support is not there, it will be clear that the same-sex marriage debate had little to do with marriage, and everything to do with state-sanctioned homosexual sex."

Go read Fr. de Souza's article for yourself.

I can already hear the silence from those on the left for all the truly useful reforms that might have a chance of strengthening marriage. Of course, it's not like SSM was always intended as a step towards abolishing marriage itself, now was it? Or are you already starting to formulate arguments as to why marriage is an irrelevant institution, having already participated in the actions that have undermined its relevance? Just curious.