[OneWingedShark]

"My opinion is, that a reservation of a right to withdraw...is a conditional ratification; that it does not make New York a member of the Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal - this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification...The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started in Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection." - James Madison, 1788

Compact
A formal agreement or contract between two or more parties.

Let us consider, then, marriage as a compact: if that compact is not kept then are the parties bound thereunto? No.
Jesus Himself kept this exception (fornication) in his rejection of divorce. [Matt 5:22]

Now, given the restrictions placed on the powers of the federal government by the Constitution, would you argue that the Compact is being kept by the Federal government? Do you think that it could even be fairly said there is good faith in keeping it? Please keep in mind:

1. Fast & Furious, which evinces ill-will toward the States and their people as well as multiple flagrant violations of the Constitution;
2. Obamacare, which destroys the individual liberty of the person to buy or sell;
3. Roe v. Wade, wherein the supreme court declared it could invent a right to privacy in order to invalidate all anti-abortion laws in the States;
4. the TSA, which recognizes no Right to Privacy, nor Right to Travel, nor the restrictions of the 4th Amendment;
5. Wickard v. filburn, wherein the USSC declared that intrastate commerce impacted the interstate and could be regulated;
6. Gonzales v. Raich, wherein the USSC declared that not participating in commerce, even if such is prohibited, is the same as commerce;
7. the 2013 NDAA allows for a person to be held w/o charges;
8. the current talks of gun ban/registration.

[0.E.O]

The marriage analogy is ridiculous. States, with but 13 exceptions, joined the Union only with the permission of the other states. This permission is expressed through a majority vote in Congress. So far as I know the bride does not need to get the permission of a majority of the grooms family to marry him. Once allowed into the Union states are limited as to what they can do outside their own borders if that action impacts another state. They can't split up without consent of Congress. They can't combine with another state without consent of Congress. They can't alter their borders or enter into agreements with the other states without consent of Congress. Leaving the Union entirely should require the same, or so James Madison thought.

"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." - James Madison, 1832