Not quite. If one or both partners believed the marriage was legitimate, then it is Putative Marriage A real world example is one were a guy was shot down over Vietnam and declared to be KIA, whose wife then married his comrade in arms. They had several children together. Those children are considered legitimate, and there was no crime (bigamy is a crime). I forget how it was sorted out. Definitely an awkward situation.
But back to BHO, if Stanley Ann thought BHO Sr was legally able to marry her, and their is no indication that she did not so believe, then at least from her point of view, the marriage would fit the definition at the link above:
Three circumstances must concur to constitute this species of marriage. 1st. There must be a bona fides. One of the parties, at least, must have been ignorant of the impediment, not only at the time of the marriage, but must also have continued ignorant of it during his or her life, because, if he became aware of it, he was bound to separate himself from his wife. 2d. The marriage must be duly solemnized. 3d. The marriage must have been considered lawful in the estimation of the parties, or of that party who alleges the bona fides.A marriage in which these three circumstances concur, although null and void, will have the effect of entitling the wife, if she be in good faith, to enforce the rights of property, which would have been competent to her if the marriage had been valid, and of rendering the children of such marriage legitimate.
Such a marriage does not create dual citizenship for the children under the BNA of 1948, which appears to have been the concern of the founders.
While the wife may enforce property rights, the UK, after proper discovery in Kenya and HI, would likely decline to consider BHO II to be one of the children of BHO Sr that was actually “governed by the BNA of 1948”, as Obama’s campaign so cleverly dangled before the opposition like a red flag in front of a bull.
Why would Obama’s campaign dangle this UK statute out to the public in a statement obviously drafted by lawyers if they didn't have an back door escape? Note that the campaign only said the BNA of 1948 governed BHO Sr’s children, NOT BHO II specifically.
It was Factcheck, not Obama’s campaign that jumped to put forward the assumption that BHO II specifically was a UK subject at birth. That assumption is based on a non-bigamous marriage, which the 1948 BNA’s governance specifically excludes, but Factcheck didn't examine that issue before they declared BHO II to be a UK subject at birth.
If a bigamous marriage were introduced into evidence, BHO II would not be a UK subject at birth and would not be a dual citizen and no violation of that aspect of the founder's intent. Of course, as yet there has been no SCOTUS ruling on point to Obama’s fact set, so I am only speculating.
Roger Ailes, Rush and Coulter do their homework and may view the NBC issue to be a trap because the bigamy could well negate Obama’s dual citizenship status at birth.
Obama was confident that he could deflect a challenge to his NBC status caused by his UK subject father, and he was right. He gamed the system though distortion and complicity of the MSM, Hillary, McCain and all of the elites, especially in taking advantage of superficial ambiguities in the WKA decision that can be twisted to support a conclusion that Wong was NBC. Obama was inaugurated in spite of a public declaration leading to an assumption that he was a subject of the Queen at birth.
What Obama is obviously NOT confident about is the “born on US soil” aspect of his NBC status.