Tears, bruising, etc., will not be necessary for a successful prosecution for marital rape. All the woman has to do is say that a few months ago, her husband forced her to have sex against her will, and she just lay back and let him for, fear that he might get violent (despite having no history of same). The same is true with "date rape" cases and even allegations of sexual assault which are being brought forward 20 yrs after the supposed event.
The current view from the bench, engendered by radical feminism, is that women do not lie about such things. When it comes to a case of he said/she said, the male is most often convicted. Afterall, why would a tender, innocent, subjugated, paragon of virtue lie?
As I suggested someone else do, look up the statistics for your area. Find out how many rapists are actually convicted of the crime they are charged with. The notion that a man is likely to be found guilty--successfully prosecuted--whether he is married or not--just by having been accused is ludicrous. It simply is not true. Very, very few ADAs out there are willing to risk charging a man with rape without, at the very least, some physical evidence. I am not saying it never happens, but it seldom does, and when it does, the likelihood of the accused walking away is damn near 100%. Ask any prosecuting attorney. Even with physical evidence--in many cases, overwhelming physical evidence--a lot of ADAs would rather plea the charge down than go to trial on a rape charge.