Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. 
“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”
Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.
Funny they never mention that.
And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.
A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).
“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him“
…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.
Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.
If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?
Some simple changes and why:
- a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
- a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
- if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
- long engagements only, 6-12 months?
- one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
- no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
- marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
- abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
- romance must go both ways
- if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
- 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
- if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
- real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
- complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
- no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
- adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
- all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
- no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
- a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
- earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.
I flatter myself these are common sense.