In the past few decades, the divorce rate in North America has skyrocketed. In Canada, 40% of all marriages will end in divorce, while that figure rises to over 50% in the United States. We are still unsure of the causes of this phenomena. Some claim that it is due to the feminist movement, others point to a breakdown in values, and still others point to the romanticisation of marriage as the root cause.

However, one of the most commonly heard complaint is that "divorce is just too easy to get", and advocates of this idea believe that the solution is to instill longer waiting or "cooling off" periods, forced marital counseling, and other means to keep the couple legally together as long as possible.

I say legally together because it isn’t a piece a paper that prevents someone from leaving his/her partner. Many couples use their "cooling off" periods to move on with their lives; move out of the area, begin dating again, or buy a new house.

In Chile, where divorce is illegal due to the Catholic influence there, it is not uncommon to find people living with others out of wedlock, even though they are still technically married to someone else. The illegitimacy rate has risen to over 40%, and adultery is commonplace. Clearly, making divorce hard or impossible to get will not correct the situation - in fact, it only makes it worse, especially for the children.

Meanwhile, in North America, a girl as young as fourteen in some states can marry with parental consent, marriage licenses can be obtained at drive-through "chapels-o-love", and many newlywed couples aren’t even old enough to legally drink the champagne they use to toast their new lives with.

It almost seems obvious that the solution is to make marriages harder to obtain, not to end. Statistics support this claim too: the younger the couple was when they married, the more likely they are to divorce.

Rather than force a long "cooling off" period, why not force a "hormonal relaxation" period? Why not opt for pre-marital counseling, instead of trying to fix something that’s been broken for so long that it has begun to rust? But most importantly, why not increase the legal age of consent to marriage to match the legal drinking, voting, and/or driving ages (whichever is higher)? It seems wrong that a person isn’t old enough to consume a liquid that will usually only have a temporary effect on oneself and surroundings, but that same person is old enough to make a lifelong commitment that may someday affect any children produced, families, and oneself dramatically.

To lower the divorce rate, we must require pre-marital counseling, higher ages of consent (and not allow parental consent if under the legal age), and impose some sort of waiting period before one can obtain a marriage license. Trying to fix something after the fact will only make things worse for those who want a divorce for a legitimate reason (i.e. spousal abuse).

Of course, few people would be willing to support such dramatic measures. After all, they’re in love. At least for now they are.