I'll mention a little bit, although I could list more...

For general context, I think it's the case that most relationships will have some disagreements and dissatisfactions from time to time, that are usually temporary and could be resolved in most cases assuming both partners are psychologically healthy and have reasonable conflict resolution skills.

I also think that both partners will from time to time notice what appears to be a more desirable partner than their current partner, sometimes that's an accurate impression and sometimes it is only a temporary impression. In the past, social and legal incentives discouraged married people from breaking up their families at low points in their marriage, and ideally they'd stay together long enough to find out how to work out their problems.

That's not to say that anyone should be stuck in a marriage. Divorce should obviously be possible for lots of reasons, and possibly for no reason, but it shouldn't be *incentivized* in my opinion. If a couple merely wants an unstable, temporary relationship, that's perfectly fine. No one is demanding that they give up that lifestyle if they prefer it, but for those who prefer the idea of marriage as a way of encouraging each other to commit to the relationship in the long term, current laws have removed absolutely every disincentive to break up the family and actually made married relationships more unstable than unmarried ones by creating financial and other incentives for breaking up the married relationship.

1) Spousal support awards to a lesser earning partner encourage that partner to break up the family rather than put effort into resolving disagreements or dissatisfactions in the relationship.

2) No-fault divorce means that anyone can end a marriage at any time for any reason, which no longer seems like what "marriage" was in the past or the vows that are made. If it's just a temporary relationship that can be ended at any time, why call it "marriage" rather than "girlfriend/boyfriend/etc."? Importantly, if there is no fault, but both parties walk away with 50% of the assets (and in practice much more usually goes to one of the sides) then the lesser earning partner in particular, and/or the partner that started with less assets, is at least "not disincentivized" from breaking up the family.

3) Child support awards in excess of the amount needed to raise children encourages the lesser earning parent to break up the family rather than resolve disagreements cooperatively. Note that I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to stay in a truly bad relationship, but specifically the award amounts should not be in excess of the needed amount. To the extent they're in excess, it's effectively a financial reward for breaking up the family.

4) Child custody awards are something like 80-85% of the time to the mother, so if a mother disagrees with the father on how to raise the kids or is having some other reasonable disagreement with him, she can break up the family and know that it's highly likely she'll get the vast majority of time with the kids, and in almost no cases would she get less than 50/50. So rather than both partners needing to learn to cooperate, one has a nuclear option they can use at any time, which imbalances any negotiation around personal boundaries or child raising.

If the government wanted to encourage stable families they would do things like:

a) Let divorce remain an option, but the party breaking up the family should be disincentivized rather than incentivized.

b) Make pre-nuptial agreements ta default that people need to opt out of, so everyone negotiates the terms on the way in instead of expensively on the way out.

c) Promote education about healthy conflict resolution strategies for all couples considering marriage, and possibly in all levels of education throughout life, as it would be beneficial to society as a whole.