If you had entered into a matrimonial union with someone (also known as a marriage) did you, or would you have had to, dissolve the matrimonial union with that someone and enter a new matrimonial union with that same someone in the process of accomplishing the different purchase agreements? I don't believe so.
If you had entered into a matrimonial union with someone did you, or would you have had to, dissolve the matrimonial union with that someone and enter a new matrimonial union with that same someone whenever you replaced one real estate agent with another? I don't believe so.
How about this:
I and my partner in marriage (matrimonial union) have owned two houses during our matrimonial union, both at different time periods. Different houses, different real estate agents (several), different mortgages, different HOA rules(bah), different cities (some with zoning, some without zoning). Same people in matrimonial union (us) but different legal purchase agreements. We didn't have to dissolve our matrimonial union and join in a new matrimonial union in the process. We claim that the matrimonial union we were in when we obtained the services of the first real estate agent and bought the first house is the same as the matrimonial union we were in when we obtained the services of subsequent real estate agents and bought the present house and that same matrimonial union still applies to our present situation.
Speaking of trying to hold another to an agreement, the Constitution called for the return of fugitive slaves from Northern States and so on to the end.
I'm aware there are positions and arguments that the North "cast the first stone" so to speak. I'm not sure how that fits in the present part of the discussion.
...(sanctuary cities, anyone?).
Sanctuary cities for traditional marriage might be in order. That's a throwaway comment. No need to respond to it.
I don't understand your analogy although it might make sense from your point of view. The states weren't married to other states. They were in a Union with them to accomplish certain goals. When the first Union was not effective at accomplishing those goals, a committee/convention was put together to improve the old agreement. However, instead of tweaking the old agreement to improve it, they basically discarded it and started over. The old agreement said that changes had to be unanimously agreed to by all 13 parties to become effective. But under the entirely new agreement, a new government could be, and was, formed when only nine of the states agreed to the new agreement.
States did not have to join the new government if they didn't want to even though others had ignored the rules of the old agreement and formed the new government with less than 13 states. The old agreement didn't apply any more -- it was a dead letter for the nine states. North Carolina and Rhode Island were the only two states still in the old (by then no longer existing) first Union for a while, and as Washington said, during that period NC and RI were not in the new Union.
Back to my analogy. My latest House is a better House than the first one I owned. Just like the Constitution formed a better Union that the Articles did. As a matter of fact, I did own two houses for four years. I kept one house when my company transferred me to another city. I bought a house in the new city. I sold the house in the new city when I was transferred back to my original city which had been the company plan all along. I moved back into the house I had kept in the original city. In your analogy that would probably make me a bigamist. LOL.
Sanctuary cities for traditional marriage might be in order.
I and my traditional wife (who jointly owned our houses with me) have been in our traditional marriage for more than 50 years. We share your concern. Cheers.