I agree that analogies (especially in reference to God) always breakdown at some point. That said, the Church as the Bride of Christ is more then just an analogy that we as humans have derived in an attempt to better understand the mystry of God (which in reality is impossible to fully understand. It is a part of scripture, most commonly the Book of Revelation (the marriage of the Lamb). Also noticed that I said the priest was maried in a mystical sense to his congregation, in the a similar way that Christ's marriage to the Church refers to the Universal Church and can not be further broken down to say that Christ is married to everyone within the Church because that would imply that poligomy is OK.
I'm not sure what "more than just an analogy" is supposed to mean, other than to imply that Jesus literally married the Church somehow. My reaction to the analogy is that I don't think saying the priest is somehow "mystically married" to his congregation is going to shed much light on anything, as that analogy needs some explanation itself. I get where you're coming from with the analogies, because their symbolism is natural, i.e. rooted in our natures, particularly our personal natures as male and female. And that is precisely what Inter Insigniores hits on the head, albeit in passing: that the all-male priesthood is a consequence of the very nature of sacramentality in general (to be what it represents), combined with the fact of Jesus' maleness and the kind of priesthood (i.e., a sacramental one) that he established. The maleness of Christ, therefore, is not dispensable or irrelevant, and is essential for understanding the all-male priesthood as well as the spousal analogy (for if Christ is indispensably male, then by necessity his "spouse", the Church, must be the Bride). So you see, I am just trying to take the discussion back a level, to the foundational level of male and female, to answer the challenge presented by female ordination, which by necessity ends up arguing that the maleness not only of the priest, but also of Christ himself, is irrelevant and can be substituted for.