There are a number of different forms of "no-fault" divorce. The ones which require both parties to agree that there are irreconcilable differences but no particular wrongdoing and which allow either party to contest either statement I don't have a major problem with. The ones that allow one party to unilaterally dissolve a marriage without declaration of "fault" are just plain evil. IMHO, any partner who seeks to unilaterally dissolve a marriage without demonstrating specific wrongdoing on the part of the other should be deemed entirely at fault for the breakup and thus get the bare minimum from any resulting divorce settlement. To make a 50% division of assets when one partner is seeking to preserve the relationship and the other to dissolve it is just plain wrong.
While I agree with the rest of what you said I don't agree with this. If they are still talking amiably enough that neither has committed adultery then the differences are not irreconcilable. Marriage is forever and is only ended by adultery or jury provable abuse.
If people would take more time to learn their spouse before they marry, and decide to make the marriage work, every marriage would succeed.
If someone want's out of the marriage badly enough that they see the differences as irreconcilable then they need to forfit the proceeds of the marriage as they are abandoning their spouse (Which I believe is close to adultery). If they want out then they should leave with nothing. Otherwise they can buckle down and work to make the marriage work.
GSA(P)