The word 'eterniage' is derived from 'eternal' and 'marriage', and 'eterniage' is the solution for encouraging lifelong marriages that I support. Let me explain.
The word 'eterniage' has several meanings. Firstly, it just means that marriage is meant to be eternal. Whilst not all marriages turn out that way, as there are unfortunately abusive situations people have to escape from, eternity is the ideal marriages generally start with, and couples should be reminded to work hard at this ideal at all times. Secondly, it reminds us that marriage has been in existence for the eternity of human culture, and its core value of commitment for life is also eternal, regardless of political action. Marriage, as it originally stood, doesn't require government validation, and is not affected by changes to political circumstances. For example, no fault divorce, originally a good policy to help women escape abusive husbands, may have made divorce easier for the rest of society too as a side effect, but this should have no effect at all on couples committed to the 'eterniage' ideal. (I am however not suggesting that this necessarily means that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as this historical definition was due to the homophobic culture of society. In modern times, it is totally legitimate to embrace the more equal definition, whilst striving to keep the core meaning of marriage otherwise. This definition should be a matter of individual conscience.)
An 'eterniage' is simply any marriage (or partnership, as the ideal still stands where there is no legal marriage, for example due to financial considerations) that lives up to the aforementioned ideal. Couples can conscienciously declare that they intend their marriage to be an 'eterniage', but they don't have to do that to be already living in an 'eterniage'.
Upholding the 'eterniage' ideal will encourage more lifelong marriages, I believe, as a result of cultural encouragement for couples to work hard at it. This is inherently better than, for example, the solution of 'convenant marriage', where governments legislate for another category of marriage with different conditions for divorce. Firstly, the convenant marriage solution is politically divisive, and is open to accusation of big government. Secondly, not many couples have taken it up where it is available. This is understandable as the horrors of government enforced continuation of partnership with an abusive spouse, as happened pre-no-fault, is too much risk for most people, even though the actual risk of this happening is very small for most people. Thirdly, even with additional barriers to divorce, the divorce rate has still been reported to be over 20% in at least one US jurisdiction with covenant marriage, higher than in many countries with no-fault divorce but with another culture. Clearly, it's the culture that matters more. Covenant marriage may even provide a false sense of security, so that couples don't work hard enough on their marriages. Finally, covenant marriage is a solution that is dependent on the government, and can be undone by political circumstances. For example, the across-the-board abolishment of convent marriage and conversion of all existing covenant marriages into regular marriages can be done by a future government, with the passage of a single act in parliament or congress. The government is never a reliable friend for anyone ever, and something as important as marriage should not rely on their assistence to be successful.