Care to point out the words abortion, marriage or even right to Privacy in the Constitution?
The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. It seems however that you look at it as the only ‘marriage’ that can’t end in divorce.
At some point there will be a divorce, hostile or otherwise.
Madison argued that the Constitution was different from the Articles of Confederation in one critical area. The Articles were a treaty between sovereign powers, thus governed by treaty law. The Constitution was a compact or contract wherein the Whole People, using the states as their agents, formed the contract. This is why Hamilton and Madison wanted the Constitution to be ratified by state ratifying conventions, not the state legislatures. It was an action of the Whole People, not the states, and was governed by contract law.
Under treaty law, if you think you're getting the short end of the stick, all you have to do is notify the other parties that you're leaving the treaty. Unilateral action is acceptable.
Under contract law, if you think you're getting the short end of the stick, you need the concurrence of the other parties to the contract to leave the contract. In one of the Federalist Papers in the 40 series, Madison argued that under the Constitution if even one state wished to secede, that would involve the dissolution of the Union, and that would require unanimous consent. In the first essay, I pointed out that Lincoln was willing to lower the bar to three fourths' consent. (Read the section marked "The Civil War and Its Aftermath.")
The Supreme Court supposedly settled the issue with Texas v. White in 1869. Under that decision, the Union is both permanent and indivisible. It was a case of the victors sealing off the exits for good.
In the essay, I pointed out that there were secession threats in 1803, 1815, 1832, 1850 and 1860. The federal response in each case was predicated on Madison's understanding of the Constitution as a contract, not as a treaty.