Well, the flaw in that conclusion is that correlation =/= causation.
Reality is, women now have more choice and so tend to pick healthier men to marry to begin with. The poorer, unhealthier ones get weeded out by this classist institution reserved for the bourgeoise men of society.
Marriage and longevity are just symptoms of this select group of providers.
Although, marriage itself could also conceivably reduce high-risk bachelor behaviors like partying, carousing, casual sex and thrill-seeking. And replace them with PTA conferences, workaholicism and lawn-mowing.
Meanwhile, divorce (which often goes hand-in-hand with marriage these days) can be completely financially and emotionally devastating to a man. Therefore, caveat emptor. I think that media release is very shaky at best and intentional propaganda at worst.
Don't get me wrong, I think love and relationships are GREAT. But, I am far less enthusiastic about legal, static frameworks for those fluid relationships.
OK, I got your point. However, I object to the "flaw" part, since it is projected and not my doing: I didn't make a peep about causation, I presented a fact, not its interpretation. The source of this fact is not the US of A where what you're talking about probably applies, but, rather, worldwide statistics that include countries where ALL men are poor and where (this part I know from living elsewhere) being in poor health has never been a serious obstacle for a male of reasonable age in finding a wife. The stigma of being unmarried is a very strong factor, chiefly reserved for women but occasionally men too, in more traditional societies, so whoever could get married, usually did.
Of course all these reasons to get married are fubar -- economic, social, legal, etc.. The main reason has been, for hundreds of thousands of years, biological: merely the fact that the human child is born absolutely immature and unprepared to fend for herself for a longer period of her life than offspring of any other species. In all species where the baby requires an extended period of care (e.g., higher primates -- five to eight years, elephants -- twelve years), the institute of marriage (without the church and the vows) naturally exists. Sometimes a marriage is a harem-like arrangement with an extended family of uncles, aunts, etc., caring for the young -- e.g., among large felines; and sometimes it is mostly, or exclusively, monogamous -- e.g., among wolves and large birds of prey. But the arrangement seems to be predicated entirely on the needs of the offspring. Sharks, snakes, frogs and any other species whose little ones are born mature enough to take care of themselves don't marry and maintain no families. I think humans today are more shark-like in their mentality, but alas not in their biology -- so children are not nurtured because adults prefer shark-like activities, but human babies are still born as dependent and needy as they did a million years ago, and everything they miss out on comes back to haunt them -- and then gets transmitted to the next generation of developmentally frustrated humans. And that's where all our troubles begin and end up, and begin and end up again.