Too complicated to have priests married IMO.
"The reason Priests are not married is because they are expected to work in near poverty and they don't get to keep any estate unless they brought it with them to begin with.
All assets stay with the people and pass on to serve the next set of people."
Diocesan priests, my friend, take no vow of poverty. They are free to amass fortunes and some have, quite legitimately.
Was Peter a married man?
I Tim 3:2 & Tit 1:6 are pretty much clear on the issue concerning married Elders of an assembly of like-minded believers. The English translation "Bishop" translated out of the Greek Episkope and Episkopos, the same Greek being rendered "overseeer" in Acts 20:28.
Moreover, I Tim 3:12 is quite clear respecting marital status of a Bishop's (Elder) assistant: Deacon. And both the qualifications for the only two Scripturally defined offices are given admonishment concerning their households: "ruling their children and their houses well" (I Tim 3:4b & 3:12b). Its extremely illogical to infer an absolute restrictive sense to the meanging of these passages.
The phrase "husband of one wife" does not mean that the Bishop (overseer/Elder) or Deacon was never married, else this would exclude a remarried widower, nor does it exclude from holding office those who've never been married. In Romans 7:1-3, Paul placed no restriction upon a widower to remarry; the restriction being that one seeking an office of the church should not be married to more than one woman simultaneously (and there would definitely be issues concerning that regarding divorcees).
The total context speaks of the exemplary moral conduct required of those who hold an office in the church.