We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I have to respectfully disagree that whether or not Jesus was married isn't very important.
Jesus' celibacy is important in several ways to Catholic Christian theology. First, being unmarried, he helped bridge the gap in which, as He stated in MT 22:30 that: "for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven", so His celibacy, and today's priests and religious, are bringing a piece of heaven to earth.
There's much more in the Catholic Catechism and on the Vaticun website or Bishop Robert Barron's "Word on Fire" website.
A more direct reading of that passage doesn't need any of the eventual theological projecting: In the next life, where the conditions of this life and its physical ramifications do not exist, there will be no marriage because love and even reproduction exist under entirely different conditions and by utterly different ways and means. Like the angels, where angels are the real beings not human but not G-d.
(Angels are a subject that gets entirely too little discussion, as ancient history is full of accounts of superior beings and even races. Somehow Christianity has converted them all into figurative winged fancies without pertinence or bearing.)
There is no need to go through the logical contortions to reapply the literal reality described therein back to Earth and man. If the new heavens and the new earth are real - which Christians believe - and if the new body follows that, then why turn the whole thing around a say that imitating a terrifically flawed re-imagining of it is a truth. Seems to me that'd be an image, not a truth.
The 20th and 21st C's seem to find lots of things about Jesus that no one had ever seen before. Which, if true, rather suggests that Jesus and the initial disciples weren't very good teachers after all, if no one could grasp what they really meant for 1900 years.
The call goes out that every era of interpretation is prisoner to its own assumptions. I think that is true. And nowhere more true than the last 200 years. I'm not sure how the possibility of that continues to elude modern thinkers.