This isn't the religion form. This is a constitutional issue. Her Christian bona fides and divorces are not relevant.
First, she is citing her religious beliefs and claiming the natural law right to exercise those beliefs. Those natural law rights are protected from government infringement by the first amendment. This is relevant to the constitutional issue.
Another poster brought up the point that since she apparently has had multiple marriages, that she will be pilloried. He discussed it in the context that there may be some hypocrisy going on (citing religious beliefs for taking a position while not living up to those beliefs she is claiming).
Then you get to our exchange.
Her religious bona-fides are very pertinent to her citation of a natural law right to practice her religion and assertion that her rights are being infringed.