I was actually just saying, in part, "I'm a bit lazy right now and I think this is something anyone who has an actual self-interest in this can and should research themselves if they don't want to be massively inconvenienced." Overtaken by
@scylla's post anyway.
And in part I was emphasizing (as I wrote): big, big difference between the person who wishes to play fast and loose with truth on forms and not mention being previously married
because they are divorced and hence free to marry - even if that means misrepresenting on a form (which I think fair to say amounts to a violation of the law, whether an administrative infraction or misdemeanour or whatever)
vs.
omitting that one has been previously married
and never been divorced, and will/may be technically liable of bigamy and certainly at risk of a new marriage being a non-marriage under the law. (Well actually it IS a non-marriage under the law, the risk is of it being discovered, as I understand).
The latter I consider a HUGE problem and risk and absolutely something to avoid. I dont think the former is a good idea either, but not going to argue with a lawyer about how much of a risk and ... not my problem.