While it should be treated harshly, I believe this is actually an insidious redefinition.

She says that putting limits on alimony erodes the "institution of marriage." She used the word 'institution' deliberately to subvert it into something literal instead of the typical use as a allusion to marriage as a "holy institution" referencing it's establishment by God himself. Rather her meaning was that of the government institution(s) that are engaged to supplement, interfere, and ultimately replace marriage (of which alimony is an important part).

Deliberate corruption of a term against it's classic connotation for political repositioning.