You wrote:
“I will always find it odd that the Roman Church allows married priests in all of the Byzantine and Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches in union with Rome and accepts married priests from other denominations.”
You’re wrong. There is no blanket policy of married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches. If there were then all of their priests in America would be married (except for monks of course). The reality is that few are married.
“It’s a curious double standard.”
There’s no double standard. We are talking about different things. And different policies can be applied to different things. The situation of a life-long Catholic is different than that of a convert later in life who is married.
“Personally, I prefer the consistency of the Orthodox view on the matter.”
We are consistent. You are consistent. But neither of us is perfectly consistent. The Orthodox don’t allow married bishops. Either do we of course. But that shows a certain wrinkle to the idea of a married priesthood. (Again, I know they’re almost always monks, but still, they’re priests, they’re not married, and that’s a wrinkle).
The way I look at it, we have no problems with it either way. We have married priests. So do you. We have unmarried priests. So do you.
I'm sorry, but you appear to be the one in error according to the Byzantines.
The Second Vatican Council welcomed the Eastern tradition of married priests when it stated in the Decree Concerning the Ministry and Life of the Priest that "Celibacy is not required by the priesthood itself, as is evident in the practices of the early Church, and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches" (No. 16 of the Decree Concerning the Ministry and Life of the Priest).