There are several points to emphasize in support of Jesus' marriage:
1) As katisara suggested, there was a strong reason to cover up Jesus' marriage (such as protecting his family). (Digression: This is similar to Jesus telling Peter to deny him three times. Most people think it was a prediction, and I have argued it was Jesus ordering him to do so to protect the future of the church. This is why it was so hard on Peter, who was the "rock" and cut off soldier's ears for Jesus just before he died. Surely it was contrary to Peter's nature. In any case, a cover up of the marriage seems important for protection of Jesus' line.)
And contrary to Mentat's point, the idea of Jesus being married has been around since Jesus died. Obviously, it was obfuscated by the time of the COuncil of Nicea and not something Trinitarians or the Catholic Church would support, so it is no wonder that the idea went dormant until the 1800s or so.
(Katisara is also exactly correct on the portrayal of the Romans. In order to get Romans as converts to Christianity, their involvement in Jesus' death had to be whitewashed, so when the Gospels were finally written decades later, this was the spin put on the incident.)
2) Contrary to Mentat's point, there is quite a bit of evidence within the Bible itself demonstrating that Jesus was, in fact, married. If you start at the first post on this thread, you can see how I've pointed out many such examples. In fact, if Jesus was not married, that would have been the thing that the writers would have pointed out because it would have been very strange to NOT be married.
3) The books in the New Testament were not written at the time they happened. They were written decades later, some of them over a century after Jesus' death. To think of them as contemporaneous and therefore wonder why mention of a wife was not made throws the wrong context; the books were written to focus on those aspects related to Jesus' ministry, not his personal life. It is not a biography.
Mentat:
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in any court of law that is just (upbringing expressed here), a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
This analogy is inapposite. First, in law, you look at the probative value of evidence. Therefore, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence depending on the situation. (For example, destruction of evidence by a company results in presumption that the evidence was not helpful to the company.) Likewise, in civil cases, the proof is whether you are swayed 50/50 one way or the other. The innocent until proven guilty presumption is a criminal law principle.
So in this case we look at anything that is probative (meaning that it in any way acts to show one thing or another that is relevant). In that case, lack of evidence is very probative.
For example, lack of any mention of Jesus being married or not gives rise to a presumption that he was, in fact, married. Because all "rabbis" had to be married, the text surely would have mentioned the oddity of Jesus not being married if he wasn't. This lack of evidence is thus good evidence. etc., etc.