I'm sorry to hear about the unforutnate circumstances of your childhood.
No one is claiming that divorce ought never to occur; certainly an addiciton (including alcoholism) that is not treated is one legitimate reason for it. So is abuse. But it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy these days. Essentially, if you no longer feel like being married, you won't be. What are irreconcilable differences? Anything you want them to be.
In general, however, all the data shows that the intact mom-and-pop family is the situatin most likely to produce productive, happy, law-abiding, compassionate, loving citizens. For the children's good and that of society, we should make divorce an extraordinary circumstance, not a routine event.
I can agree with you that divorce should be less routine, but if as you say we should make divorce an extraordinary circumstance, well, who gets to decide what those circumstances are? I mean, one could say addiction or abuse, but is that limited to physical abuse? What if one partner insists there is addiction and the other insists there isn't? What if there is no cheating, abuse or addiction but one partner states flatly "I don't love you, I've never loved you, we'll never have any kind of loving or physical relationship, but we can live in the same house as roommates for the kids' sake", should the other partner be legally bound to stay married to this person for the rest of his or her life? Is it better for the children and their future relationships to live in such a dysfunctional, if not violent or abusive household?
I just don't see how any kind of divorce restrictions could be decided upon or fairly enforced. Like most things this is a case where the government ought to stay out of it and let the individuals involved decide. I know that same argument is used by the PCers, but in that case it's a life or death situation for the unborn child so it's not quite the same thing.