Love and marriage

[Sanford Levinson]

George Dent writes:

>>
>>
>  Law professors should realize that circumstances under which a legal
>relationship can be dissolved affect not only dissolution but also the
pre-dissolution
>behavior of the parties. Consider how you would treat a house you occupied
>under a (enforceable) contract for your life. Now consider how you would
>treat the same house if the owner could cancel the lease at any time for
>any (or no) reason without suffering any legal disadvantage.
>  The latter is the marriage contract in American law now--the state will
>not enforce any other. It denies any benefit to a spouse who has invested
>money, effort and emotional commitment to the marriage; it rewards the
>spouse who gives the least, takes the most, and leaves when it suits
>his/her convenience. We see the effects of making this the (only) valid
>marriage contract. Maybe some change is in order.
>
>
As a law professor, I think I understand Professor Dent's point.  The
question I asked (which no one has yet answered) is whether (any of) the
classic Protestant Reformers--I am thinking primarily of John Milton, though
he may be wildly atypical--repudiated the Catholic notion of marriage and
started us off on our path to identifying love and marriage and, thus,
suggesting that when love disappears, so should the marriage.  As I thought
I indicated, I am *not* making an argument.  I am genuinely seeking
information about the difference(s) between (some) Protestants and
traditional Catholicism.  I am also curious whether Protestants like
Professors Duncan and McConnell regret to at least some extent that
Protestantism didn't retain the Catholic notion of marriage as an
indissoluble sacrament.

Sandy Levinson