I can see a difference though. That ruling seems to be saying that where divorce is to be granted it can’t be only granted to the rich. Which is fair enough. But it doesn’t seem to address whether it has to be granted at all.
It is presumably legal for the state to put conditions on divorce, such as standards of evidence, grounds and even waiting periods. I assume that’s legal because those restrictions are in place today. So it seems clear that, contrary to what you quoted, the court *can *prevent, or at least delay, individuals from obtaining a divorce if it thinks that the divorce is unreasonable. Or to paraphrase Poly said, the court gets to evaluate whether the grounds are sufficient and the knock-on effects are acceptable.
So in theory I guess the state could put a waiting period on divorce such that it only takes effect when the youngest child turns 18 without being out of bounds on that particular right.
But it seems like they run afoul on the freedom of association as soon as they tell someone they have to live with their spouse and children.