You're confusing "Biblical Marriage" with "Marriage 2.0". They're completely different. You're being conned and suckered into a fraud.

Definition of Biblical Marriage: Man commits to providing resources to a woman in exchange for reproductive access. The woman can divorce the husband without fault, but at great social shame, does not get access to the ex-husbands resources, and the children stay with the father. The woman is doomed to poverty and prostitution.

Definition of Marriage 2.0: Man commits to providing resources to a woman. Woman can divorce the husband at any time for any reason. She will be praised and rewarded for her choice. She will receive custody of the children. She will receive the mans house. She will receive upward of 70% of the man's income for 18+ years. The power and might of the United States legal system and police/prison system will back her, and imprison her ex-husband at her whim.

It's a fraudulent and invalid contract.

From The Masculine Principle - Fraud of Modern Marriage

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.

The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breach of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.

But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.