Comments about ‘"Why Marriage Matters": Marriage leads to better overall health, scholar Linda Waite says’

Why is Maggie Gallagher quoted here? Because she co-athored a book with this social scientist. The data, however, contradict their argument against same sex marriage. The only solution it seems is to get rid of state sanctioned marriage certificates and let adults choose civil unions. Loneliness and financial disadvantage of single-hood seem clear (according to Waite who's work is obviously of high quality). Time to rid this country of the legacy of church-state (Catholic) engineered family and kinship models!

Sounds like all of the same to me, regardless of the makeup of the family, the benefits are the same. So why deny groups the same opportunities, resources and rewards? POWER, White power and privilege.

So here some more research that the gay rights advocates are going to want to ignore as well. They will probably call this lady a few names and try to vilify her as well as they do with everyone else who has a different point of view then theirs.

It's nice to see common sense behavior backed up by hard data, but you don't need data to confirm what has been proven empirically - traditional marriage (man + woman) has always been the mechanism by which society survives and thrives. It provides the optimal foundation for raising children and for nurturing values that will help future generations succeed.

Deconstructionists and anti-establishment types always like to point to the aberrations within the marriage model (adultery, infidelity, abuse) in order to discredit it.

But these behaviors are not by-products of marriage; instead, they are deviations from the unity and progress made possible by the structure of marriage. They are problems intrinsic to "individuals" not "institutions" such as marriage.

It's a sad commentary on today's society when one feels compelled to have to justify through data what ought to be evident based on historical experience. It only shows how much muddled many are where social norms are concerned.

This was a good talk. The article is poorly written, however. Aside from the headline flaws (Waite is a Chicago Scholar--not a BYU one) this story represents the basics. The marriage promotion folks (Gallagher et al) don't add to the value of this piece. In fact, they take credibility away from the presentation. But...what's new with the Desnews!?!?

The benefits of marriage don't apply just to heterosexuals, Maggie Gallagher, they apply to ANYBODY in a marriage. And Maggie Gallagher is no marriage expert, she shouldn't be quoted in such an article.

A good marriage does....

But a bad one can kill you sooner with stress over little things like money, addictions, poor communication, etc. It is better to take some time to get to know someone BEFORE you say I do. Wait till you are at least 21 girls and the boy is done with college. Don't rush the single most important decision. If he truly is the one, he can wait.

This is one more reason gays want Marriage. "It leads to better overall health."

"The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially."

It would seem, then, that in order to benefit ALL humans, "The Case for Marriage" makes the case for ALL Marriage.

Mine might be one of the case. After my marriage, I have seen that I had to provide for my husband and children and the savings remained standstill or decreased. Lot of stress and decline in health taking care of the children alone. So, I have to differ with this result and there are lots who might be going through the same.

I totally Agree with (Common Sense) G&L's can't argue the (adultery, infidelity, and abuse)case. These things should not be a part of marriage either. I sure adultery, infidelity and abuse occur in Gay relationships too.

Why, if marriage has so many benefits, do people in Utah (and California) work so hard at denying that right to an entire group of people?

Would it be too much to ask for the Des News to include links to the research papers and charts and graphs cited in articles such as this so readers can see the original data? Some critical things are omitted from the article, such as how much greater life expectancy, earnings, etc. of married couples are compared to unmarried couples and singles, and whether the differences are statistically significant. Linking to the source data would let us see for ourselves (without using up precious column inches).

To Common sense | 1:23 a.m. Feb. 16, 2010:
Nothing in the article suggests that the benefits of traditional marriage (someone to share the workload with, etc.) would not also accrue to same sex marriage. Indeed, common sense suggests that they would. To deny same sex couples access to an institution shown to improve health, longevity, and personal happiness only highlights the cruelty of opposition to same sex marriage. It is analogous to withholding medicine from a sick person. Ironically, the take home message from the research is that society would benefit if access to marriage were extended to all couples.

Re: Lagomorph | 8:03 a.m. Feb. 16, 2010:

If Dr. Waite is following comments here, maybe she could post a link to her research herself.

This says it about the best, with the right soul mate nothing better with the wrong one nothing worse

A Woman
Be very careful if you make a woman cry,
Because God counts her tears.
Woman came out of a man's rib,
Not from his feet to be walked on,
Not from his head to be superior,
But from the side to be equal.
Under the arm to be protected
And next to the heart to be loved.'

Wonder how many wonen's libers I am gonna hear from

The use of the phrase "traditional marriage" in this article is extremely misleading. It appears that the study compared marriage to alternatives such as cohabitation, that is, non-marriage. "Traditional marriage" is usually used to contrast heterosexual marriage with same-sex marriage, but I don't see anything in the article to indicate that same-sex marriage was part of the study. If heterosexual marriage generally leads to better choices and better lives, and lacking data on the matter, why would anyone assume that same-sex marriage would not do the same thing for gays and lesbians, leading them to better choices and benefitting both them and society?

This leading scholar on marriage and religion kicks gay rights in the teeth.

Gay marraige is an oxymoron

"Why, if marriage has so many benefits, do people in Utah (and California) work so hard at denying that right to an entire group of people? "

You seem to think that only two states where the vote has been brought to the people and was defeated. Over 30 states so far have voted against gay marriage.

Maggie, she said "Traditional Marriage"