Would social conservatives and social liberals please both attempt to explain and steelman/criticize this assertion?

So, it seems to me that there is a terrible disconnect between property-splitting during a divorce and the existence of no-fault divorce, making marriage a tremendously costly move for the wealthier of the two parties (especially if they're male). If in order for Bob to marry Alice, he has to give her the unilateral option to take half of his things and leave, then marriage seems unwise.

In the era of fault divorce, Bob is safer- he needs to either break the contract, or can end the contract if Alice breaks it without having to transfer to her the same share of his possessions.

(I think that the collapse in marriage rates is seen at too coarse a level. If you look at marriage rates by class, you notice that the upper class is still living in the 50s and the lower class has collapsed. An explanation, that I buy, is that we no longer try to promote good citizenship and good living, and so unsurprisingly people answer the call of the short term, to their long term detriment.)

And frankly, I'd be creeped out by people who start a marriage for affection or companionship and already think about enforcing loyalty.

This reads like a status assertion to me, along the lines of "follow your dreams" being code for "I'm awesome enough that I can get ahead by following my dreams" or "I'm awesome enough that I get to set my job parameters." Not caring about loyalty is code for "I'm going to be awesome forever, so it'll always be in their interests to stay with me," but far better to have insurance in case of worse, poorer, or sickness.

I always understood falling marriage as being primarily linked to the rise in women's education and economic independence.

If so, then why are the educated women marrying more than uneducated women? [src]