That would be an extremely strict reading of the law, which I don’t believe is applicable. Generally, if a law merely codifies common law practice, then it is usually interpreted within the common law tradition. The law must explicitly contradict the common law interpretation, which the Illinois law does not necessarily do.
For instance, the law would have to state that there is a presumption of nullity if the paperwork documenting the exchange of vows is not completed in a timely manner. This does not appear to be the case…
Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Why isn’t this obvious? The paperwork is merely a certification that the event occurred.
This is NOT a contradiction to anything posted by anyone else. What you have here is varying definitions of “marriage”. In April they had met the American definition, and the definition of the Thai legal authorities, but the definition of whichever religion they followed was not met until June.
Some friends of mine, Orthodox Jews, were in a similar position. One was American and the other Canadian, and they had a civil ceremony several months before their Jewish wedding, specifically in order to facilitate the immigration process. But they did not consider themselves to be married in the eyes of God until the religious ceremony.
Addendum: when you begin farting in front of one another during the dating period, you are really married when you quit noticing that you are farting in front of each other.