Basically, under current law we have the following situation. One spouse in a marriage decides he wants out (he being used in the neuter, as is proper for the English language). He goes to a judge and says so. The judge informs his spouse that they can make no contact and that various sorts of papers need to be signed to break up the affair and there can be no contesting of the divorce proceedings under penalty of jail time. EG:

When the case was first filed, Mrs. Macfarlane had asked the judge to send
both herself and her husband to conciliation services, so they might resolve
their conflict, but Judge Karner would not do so unless both parties were
willing to attend, and Mr. Macfarlane refused.

Mrs. Macfarlane then learned that Cuyahoga County had never even instituted
any conciliation programs, as are required in Ohio Revised Code 3117, which
was enacted to ameliorate the affects of the "no-challenge" system of
no-fault divorce, where the petitioner is always granted his/her request for
a divorce. She suspects that this Code has not been properly implemented in
any Ohio county, which means there is nothing offered to the spouse who
wants a chance at preserving his/her intact family when facing the threat of
divorce.

The change to "no-fault" divorce was originally promoted in the late '60's
by lawyers as a way of actually saving marriages --- by eliminating the
bitter acrimony of the "fault"-based divorce system where one party had to
accuse the other of wrongdoing. In addition, discussion about changing the
law included the idea that "court-ordered counseling" would be part of this
new system.

The sinister side to no-fault divorce is that most people assume no-fault
means "mutual consent", whereas up to 80% of divorces are "coerced" by
judges who believe they need to keep the divorce "conveyor" belt rolling.
Reluctant spouses are forced to sign "agreements" about property and
children at the threat of being jailed. Mrs. Macfarlane has been
so-threatened, and she tells her story --- including the judge's own words,
taken from the court record --- in a quickly-written book called, "and
Justice for None". Her motive is to convey to others the diabolical nature
of this country's prevailing divorce system, where jurisdiction over
marriage is based solely on a residency requirement and where judges deny
any measures requested by the defendant that might salvage marital
relations.

Now, what we have here is basically an attempt to enforce the contracts that Catholics enter into when they marry to agree to the laws of the church regarding marriage. Mostly because the Chruch doesn't conceive of marriage, as most of the secular world does, as a sacred bond that can be broken by any party at any time for no reason with no avenue of recourse and with attempts to reconciliate being illegal.

I say, sock it to 'em.