Much of the author’s argument falls apart on the fact that the Gospel writers always refer to them as betrothed, not married.
While betrothal is not exactly the same thing as a modern engagement, the ancients were fully aware that it was something short of full marriage.
It is also relevant that ancient Judaism had nothing parallel to our present marriage ceremony, with public vows and such. The “ceremony” generally consisted of a procession through the streets, with the father of the bride taking her to her husband’s home, and handing her over to him. The essence of the process was the father publicly giving (or selling) the bride to her husband.
This was followed by a celebration at the new husband’s home, like the one at Cana. The wedding was normally consummated that night.
The period between when the father contracted his daughter in marriage and the procession through the streets was referred to as betrothal. Under the Law a betrothed woman was treated in many ways as a married one, for instance with regard to the law on rape, and breaking the betrothal required a divorce.
But there WAS a difference between betrothal and marriage and the Gospel writers presumably were indicating something by making this distinction.
Yep. They were betrothed, but not yet consummated. Then Mary becomes pregnant, an awkward state to be in prior to your betrothed husband having consummated the marriage.