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.  In both cases, the Court argued that these decisions would not prejudice the traditional position, since marital agreements in the divorce period could only be considered as pre-emption agreements on support obligations or spousal allowances (support obligations). Of course, this justification is wrong, because with regard to the nature of marriage contracts in the contemplation of divorce, the fact is to agree on the financial consequences of divorce, regardless of the nature and extent of these consequences: whether it is the transport of real estate, the delivery of any type of goods or the return of money to the lender, the reimbursement of expenses or the payment of alimony, etc. Parties may waive disclosure beyond what is expected and there is no certification requirement, but this is good practice. There are special requirements when the parties sign the agreement without a lawyer, and the parties must have an independent lawyer when they limit spousal assistance (also known as simony or spousal support in other states). Parties must wait seven days after the pre-marital contract has been submitted for review for the first time before signing it, but it does not need to happen a number of days before the marriage.  Prenups often take months to negotiate, so they should not be abandoned until the last minute (as people often do). If the pre-scheme requires a lump sum payment at the time of divorce, it can be assumed that it favours divorce. This concept has been attacked and counsel should be consulted to ensure that Prenup does not violate this provision. [Citation required] If you or your spouse are domiciled (separated or shared), you can indicate in a marriage agreement how the property should be affected.
You can decide whether the property should remain separate or liberated. Many rules of Roman law referred to agreements between future spouses (or their families), called pacta nuuptialia (marriage contracts), very often called pacta antenuptialia, or pacta ante bridal, with terminology that is very similar, some current expressions that are still used today, such as antenuptial agreements. One of the recurring elements in such contracts was the right of the spouses to recover the dowry. The dowry was the transfer of money and/or other types of assets (mobile, real estate, etc.) from the bride (or, more often, her family) to the groom, at the time of the marriage, to contribute to part of the costs associated with the creation of a new household (ad onera matrimonii ferenda). The husband had the right to manage these assets, to defend their fruits and interests (to use them for the family), but he was not their rightful owner, at least in the full sense of the word, since he (or his heirs) was to return the dowry at the time of the dissolution of the marriage. This is not the only example of such an agreement in Europe. The French tradition is well acquainted with the Alsatian clause (Alsace clause) according to which a couple can choose the regime of the general heritage community (which also includes property acquired by each spouse before the marriage), but in the event of divorce, the dissolution of the marriage will act as a resolute condition.