A scenario, not so hypothetical, and only to emphasize my point.
Suppose a group of ethnic people in a subdivision draft a set of “mother country” laws to govern the community. That among these contractual laws, by virtue of just remaining within the community and not moving out, are covenants that concern the proper treatment of marriage, of women, and of children. Anyone entering into the community is held subject to the community laws and Mother Country punishments. Will this private contract prevail over US law? Why not? HOA contracts do. What’s the difference?
Now suppose a group of homeowners living in an HOA do the same thing? Suppose they argue, as in the Dec. of Indepen., that the HOA government is illegitimate and invalid for various reasons including contract fraud, unconstitutional, and contrary to public policy. That they therefore reject the HOA government. Which contract shall prevail? The Mother County contract or the HOA? Can the HOA claim that their contract is superior to the will of the people in this group, as they have done in turn with civil laws? What’s the difference? Who is right?
Is this country, and your state, under the rule of law or the rule of man? Where any group can write an agreement to circumvent the US and state constitutions.