It is true that Jesus was referred to as "rabbi." Rabbi means "teacher." Jewish priests, like Caiaphas, served in ritual roles and had various administrative duties, but did not lead congregations in the contemporary sense. Rabbinical Judaism only really arose after the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD.
Wives had little status at the time, and would not have been germane to the message.
Women certainly had a different status than men in 1st Century Palestine. However, the women in the New Testament who participated in the story of Jesus are not ignored. I would point to figures like the Virgin Mary, Anne, the mother of John the Baptist, Pilate's wife, Mary and Martha, sisters of Lazarus, and so on.
Obviously, reasonable minds can differ as to whether Jesus had a wife. But when women like Peter's mother-in-law (!) are mentioned, I think it is unreasonable to assume that Jesus's wife would not be.
He did amend a few of the Old Testament dictates – an eye for an eye is a good example – but it can hardly be said that He “overturned the old order”. He appeared to be an observant Jew. The old order was overturned much later when the Word was spread to the Gentiles and non-Jews took over.
Jesus was crucified, in part, because he did not appear to be an obedient Jew. But my point is that Jesus was hardly an average Jewish resident of Roman Palestine, and assumptions premised on his "averageness" can only go so far.
As I said, reasonable minds can disagree on this matter. I'm just hesitant to make an assumption about the life of Jesus based on no evidence.
But when women like Peter's mother-in-law (!) are mentioned, I think it is unreasonable to assume that Jesus's wife would not be.
I doubt I will ever understand the fuss over the possibility of the Christ having a wife, and I imagine it will continue to be a major concern for some.