In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted same-sex marriage the same legal basis as same-sex marriage, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (decided June 26, 2015). The consequence of the Supreme Court decision is that a pre-marriage contract entered into by a same-sex couple in one state is enforceable in the event of a divorce in another state.  Example: Before getting married, Tiffany and Mark sign an agreement for Tiffany to receive $75 a week from Mark in the event of divorce or separation. According to previous state decisions, this antenuptial agreement would be null and for all. The Tribunal held that the rule that such agreements are automatically non-acute should be abolished. In particular, the court recognized that a divorce was usual and there was no evidence that marital agreements favoured divorce. In addition, social changes make restrictions on marriage contracts inappropriate. The agreement on support obligations was valid as long as there was full disclosure and the conditions at the time of execution were not unacceptable. See z.B.
Edwardson v. Edwardson, 798 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1990). The canonical law: the letter and the spirit, a commentary on canon law, states that the condition can be defined as ”a provision by which an agreement is subject to verification or the fulfillment of a circumstance or event that is not yet certain.” He added: ”Any future condition related to conjugal consent invalidates the marriage.” For example, a marriage would not be valid if the parties prescribed that they must have children, or they had the right to divorce and remarry. [Citation required] Marriage contracts in Canada are subject to provincial legislation. Every province and territory in Canada recognizes marital agreements. For example, in Ontario, marriage contracts are called marriage contracts and are recognized by Section 52 of the Family Law Act.  These agreements may be covered by the Indian Contract Act 1872. Section 10 of the Indian Contracts Act states that agreements must be considered contracts when they are concluded by the free consent of the parties.  Section 23 of the same statute states that a contract may be non-sour if it is immoral or contrary to public policy.  With respect to financial matters leading to divorce, matrimonial agreements are regularly upheld and enforced by courts in virtually all states.