Not really; marriage is the fundamental compact in human society: that is it is the one that is recognized and revered universally.
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.
Just like a vote to expand a board of directors would be from a board of directors -- according to the bylaws of most [all?] companies.
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.
All correct, except possibly the last, again the question becomes is a bereaved party still beholden to the contract's terms? Or does the law provide for the dissolution [with benefits] to the injured party?
"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
Looks like Madison agreed with me: that the federal government violating the Constitution was grounds for a State saying "no more".
And which bears absolutely no resemblance to the relationship between the states.
Just like a vote to expand a board of directors would be from a board of directors -- according to the bylaws of most [all?] companies.
And wouldn't the same be required to reduce the size of the board of directors?
All correct, except possibly the last, again the question becomes is a bereaved party still beholden to the contract's terms? Or does the law provide for the dissolution [with benefits] to the injured party?
A more salient question is who decides when a party is injured? The Southern states claimed their rights were violated and the compact broken. Why didn't the other states have the ability to disagree and insist that the compact was intact? Even in your marriage analogy one side does not have the right to unilaterally end the marriage and walk off with all the property they can get their hands on. The decision has to be mutual, or decided by a judge.
Looks like Madison agreed with me: that the federal government violating the Constitution was grounds for a State saying "no more".
You would be wrong. Later in the same letter Madison wrote: "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain."