Mind you though, she's not a homophobic bigot, because she's all in favor of teh gays getting civilly unionized, just don't call it marriage, because when you do that, you are opressing her religious beliefs.
News flash Ruth Ann, your church, or any church, is no way required to perform a marriage if it doesn't want to, but no church gets to own the definition of a word either. Your religious freedom is in no way threatened by gays getting married, and by calling it marriage.
When I married the first time, the ceremony took place in a judicial magistrate's office, presided over by a judge. No clerics were involved. But we didn't get a "civil union" certificate, we got a marriage certificate. When we applied for the license we didn't get a "civil union" license, we got a marriage license. Our marriage was recognized by the state, although it wouldn't be recognized by a church. That said, society viewed us as married, and not "civil union-ed."
Definitions of words and terms change. At one time, divorce was considered scanalous, and divorcees were socially looked down upon. Before that, divorce was difficult, if not impossible to obtain.
Ruth Ann might want to remember that, seeing as she's on husband number 2, IIRC.