It is prudent to pursue multiple paths of ineligibility rather than bet the farm on one path. You can bet that Team Obama is trying to cover their bases on all fronts.
The Indonesian and British citizenship theories are alike in one aspect and that is that the other countries’ laws and regulations are not binding on our courts. If the definition of natural born citizen is born in the U.S. to two citizen parents, then it doesn’t matter whether or not Obama Sr. and Dunham were married. The only relevant fact in that theory is that Obama Sr. was most certainly not a U.S. citizen. Therefore Obama Jr. was not born to two citizen parents. The marriage is irrelevant.
Birthers have favorite theories. Preferring one theory over another is a natural consequence of having such a diverse group of people, but that doesn’t mean that another birther’s theory is irrelevant or a red herring. Donofrio’s theory is relevant and valid. Polarik’s theory is relevant and valid. Both should be pursued to their end.
Likewise, those who have given up on removing Obama from office this term and instead want to focus on enacting state laws to establish a procedure for verifying eligibility are pursing a path to ineligibility. Their preferred method of ousting Obama is no less relevant or valid than any other method.
Two citizen parents? What if one or both was naturalized? What if both were born here, but the grandparents were illegals? Or naturalized? Where's the law on the subject?
The fact is, "natural born citizen" has never been defined by Congress or the courts. Therefore, one must assume it means "citizen at birth", as opposed to "not a citizen at birth but became one later via naturalization (a legal process)". Assuming Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, he was a citizen at birth for sure, per the 14th Amendment, and is therefore a natural born citizen.