That’s very interesting, but in Hawaii a child is legitimate even if the marriage is bigamous.
See http://law.jrank.org/pages/11834/Annulment-Prohibited-Marriage-Prohibited-Marriage.html
Therefore, Obama is not a “bastard”, because he is not illegitimate.
Whether Obama was born “out of wedlock” is yet another question. My bet is that because Obama’s parents were married and divorced and the legality of the marriage has never been challenged in court, that he would not qualify as “born out of wedlock”, but this case could turn on some fine points of Hawaiian and Federal law.
Also to consider here is the origin of the designation “natural-born” which originated in English law and the purpose of which was a test for undivided loyalty “to the King”. Obama, possibly a citizen of Kenya, the USA, and Indonesia may have trouble along these lines, especially because he promoted the election of Rail Odinga in Kenya, and probably traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at a time Indonesia did not permit dual nationality.
Only way you can give up US citizenship is to go overseas, appear before a US consular office and verbally renounce it. Even that doesn’t always stick (Lee Havey Oswald renounced his citizenship in Russia and the US government let him back into the country. That didn’t work out so well).
Hawaii’s law is irrelevant (even if the law you cited is the same as it was in 1961), it protects the child’s legal status as legitimate offspring of the father. A child can be legitimized by parents marrying after his birth.
The federal law’s term use of “born...out of wedlock” is not quite the same thing. For purposes of the immigration code, you can’t be “born again”, even if one’s parents married after your birth.