It's implied that he failed as a husband/man in a duty to protect his wife - and that's not a dynamic I had ever once considered as being even a little bit part of *my* conception of marriage! But is very clearly part of some ideals set out for a heterosexual couple.

It's more like the ideals in toxic masculinity, derived from marriage's origins where a wife is property and if his property is stolen or damaged in some way it reflects badly on him for being an irresponsible owner. But then SPN has always had this masculinity ethos behind it which is a big reason for the ugliness of its approach.