Whether Ohio courts improperly invalidated a Jewish marriage contract (Ketubah) by refusing to enforce religious marriage agreements and applying inconsistent legal principles

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Dees the Ohis court's decision to invalidate a dewish Ketubah as an unenforceable "promise to marry” and void as against public policy conflict with decisions of other state courts that have recognized religious marriage contracts as . valid and enforceable agreements, thereby creating a significant split among state courts on an important federal questions concerning religions Hberty and contract rights that sust be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court? 2. Should xeligious marriage contrarts, that protect women. of faith-based communities, be deemed valid under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the Hberty and property protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and ) be anforceable under neutral principles of contract. Jaw consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (4979)? 3. Does the Ohio court's refasal to apply neutral principles of law to imterpret and enforce a Jewish Retubah conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones vy. Wolf, 443 US. 595 979), which held that courts. may resdlve dispntes involving religious entities by applying neutral principles of law without violating the Establishment Clause?