I think that the historical idea there is a marriage contract should be changed. There are no real legal causes and condition in the "marriage contract". The proof of that is found during dissolution proceedings in family court.
Originally, the idea of family court was a court of equity, as opposed to a court of law. The reasoning being that the law can be harsh, and it may not cover a legal remedy for an inequitable problem. So in the court of Equity they had the discretion to make better decisions for divorce.
In theory, this seems to make sense but in practice it didn't work. Over the course of time the Equity Court merged into the Court of Law. There are still some legal remedies like Specific Performance on contracts.
The family law courts especially before 1970 where divorce had to have a bad person, like an adulterer, were taking the side of the women. I guess it was left over from the code of chivalry.
Men before 1970 had an uphill battle.
1970 the marriage contract takes another hit. Now, like At Will Employment Contracts, dissolving a marriage just takes the will of one party. Dissolution can be made based on one party wanting a divorce. No guilty party, just get out of the divorce.
Here is what the lack of any concrete clauses and conditions in the "marriage contract" is the problem. The Family Court not having these details uses the presumptions of the state as to how to handle the couple, their children and their property.
Before 1970, it was winner take all, and most of the time the winner was the woman. After 1970, it was more equitable but still at the mercy of the judge.
Not all states had community property laws, some had dower rights. The latter gave the woman 1/3 instead of 1/2.
So much for the background.
If couples that want to get married actually get a legal contract similar to a business partnership, then the court can only judge the terms of the contract. Which should have all the conditions and clause to take care of most situations. Including what happens when they dissolve the marriage. Of course there will be legal limitations concerning the children, but it has to be better than the presumptions of the state.
Going one step further, if the IRS would treat marriage like a partnership for tax purposes it could include any legal combination of people regardless of gender. It would also remove the need to treat marriage any different than current limited partnerships.
If that dn answer ur ? pleas delete my comment.