Not everything that is wrong should be illegal. At the same time, liberty is not absolute. Balancing those two concepts is the challenge.

No one would, I think, suggest that we should pass a law against coveting, even though that's enjoined in the Tenth Commandment, and few if any people would defend coveting as a good thing. But the bad effects of any such law (or any other law that criminalizes thought rather than action) would inevitably swamp any good it might do.

Moving into a more realistic sphere, while restrictions on tobacco use are growing ever tighter, it's not likely that cigarette smoking will become per se illegal, even though that's clearly a form of self-abuse. Our general interest in protecting personal liberty, combined with an awareness of the societal costs of prohibiting certain types of behavior, suggest that people should have the right to put themselves at risk in that way, even if we know it's dangerous.

That right to put oneself at risk is not, however, absolute. Going over Niagara Falls is illegal, even if it won't harm anyone other than the idiot doing it. Speed limits apply even if no one else is on the road.

I think divorce should be approached much like tobacco use (it is, of course, a bit ironic to use that analogy when talking about Tolkien and Lewis, though I think they were exclusively pipe-smokers): it should be discouraged, particularly to protect those who will face secondary impacts (in divorce's case, the children of divorce), but should not be prohibited. Marriage isn't easy; those of us who are believers recognize that God's Spirit lives within us to give us the grace and power to do the difficult, even humanly impossible, but nonbelievers don't have the same resources, and we shouldn't expect the same results. (And even believers may quench the Spirit, doing things that irreparably rupture the marriage bond.)

At the same time, the no-fault divorce culture has had disastrous consequences that are obvious to anyone not wilfully blind, and on purely sociological grounds we can argue for an altered system that still doesn't go back to medieval requirements to seek an annulment from the Pope.

Meador and Tolkien make a solid case for Christians and others to uphold marriage, but a less solid case for legislating their ideas onto everybody.

C.S. Lewis' position is NOT that all beliefs are equal. It is that all men are ignorant and will therefore assume suboptimal belief systems, and attempting to change that by force is counterproductive.