California was the first state to allow no-fault divorces, when Gov. Ronald Reagan (divorced) signed off on the law in 1969. By 1985, every state followed suit, which reflected changes in societal attitudes. Now, some Idaho legislators would like to turn back the clock by allowing couples to enter into covenant marriages, which would be more difficult to end.

Society has an interest in stable marriages, because statistics show that broken families lead to an increase in other social ills, such as poverty and crime. But if the goal is to prevent those outcomes, wouldn’t it make more sense to mandate covenant marriages? Three states – Louisiana, Arizona and Arkansas – have adopted such marriages and all have made them voluntary. The reason they aren’t mandatory is the key to why states should butt out in the first place.

It’s too intrusive.

Covenant marriages require counseling before nuptials and before divorces are granted. The rules vary, but the idea is to make breaking up harder to do. Generally, divorces are not granted unless there has been abuse, adultery or jail time. Arizona allows for quicker divorces if both parties consent. Arkansas and Louisiana do not.

This puts states in the ticklish position of deciding whether there really was abuse or adultery. Both can be difficult to prove, especially if the abuse is mental. In the meantime, people are locked into toxic relationships.

When Louisiana became the first state to adopt the covenant marriage option, some social conservatives predicted the trend would sweep the nation and help rein in the social ills related to divorce. However, Arkansas was the last state to adopt such a law, in 2001. About two dozen other states, including Washington, have rejected this choice.

Despite the flagging momentum, proponents in the Idaho Legislature say the state should give it a try – or at least have the conversation. Discussing the issue is fine. And certainly more couples could use counseling and education before they enter into marriage. But it’s going too far to have the state intercede in such a personal decision as divorce.

Yes, this would be a path that couples have chosen, but it’s a choice that nullifies all other choices, such as no longer wanting to stay in an unbearable relationship because of unforeseen events. It would be especially hypocritical in a state that bars people from getting married because of their sexual orientation. One of the rationales for that is to protect the institution of marriage. But how can that be justified in a state that still allows no-fault divorces?

Not only would no-fault divorce still be an option, it would be the choice of more than 98 percent of couples, according to the experiences of other states. The paltry participation rate in covenant marriages precludes it from having the desired effect on society as a whole.

Relationships vary widely and traditional barriers to marriage and divorce have long been broken. Involving the state in a fanciful trip to yesteryear is impractical, ineffectual and unwise.