If you read through here and in other threads you'll see that scooter is of the opinion that Charles is not fit to be king on the grounds of his behaviour during his first marriage and the woman he chose to make his second wife.
She choses to represent facts in a manner that isn't always true and when it is true often isn't the full story. I refer to this as a conspiracy theory - the theory that Charles has somehow actually made himself unable to become king because of his affair, divorce and/or second marriage.
Consider the parallel that scooter has made between Charles and Edward VIII, the man who is commonly depicted as being the king who gave up his throne in order to marry a divorced woman. This isn't nearly as clear cut as scooter (and others) want to make it. Wallis Simpson was at the time of the abdication an American woman who had already been divorced once and was currently married to another man going through a divorce that wasn't a guarantee and threatened to bring the king into it. Divorce was not easy to get at the time, especially if both parties had cheated as had happened in the Simpson marriage. Further, Wallis had a history of not exactly being loyal to men - at the time, it was seen that Wallis was using Edward for her own personal gain and would one day take the money she could and run. She wasn't a person who was well liked or had the right connections within British society. In short, her person was not acceptable as a possible Queen consort. The fact that Edward himself wasn't exactly suited to rule was just icing on the cake - and they surely had figured that one out by them. Likewise, the fact that he wasn't involved in the church didn't help either.
In the 70 years since then, times have changed. While the CoE may not be fully embracing divorce yet, overall British society has accepted it as a part of life. Charles is not the first British Royal to divorce, nor the first to remarry. Perhaps if he was a pioneer there attitudes may have been different, but the failures of his siblings and aunt's marriages and the remarriage of Anne all helped things. Camilla, while having a past, does not have one that is remotely comparable to that of Wallis, especially when you factor in the changing of times. Furthermore, her relationship with Charles was already long lived well before marriage talks, making it clear she wasn't just going to love him and leave with the family jewels. And unlike Wallis, Camilla was accepted by Charles' family. The church may not have been the location of the ceremony, but the CoE did bless the marriage, the Queen consented to it, and the governments of Charles' future realms decided it was a non-issue.
Furthermore, as Bertie pointed out the stipulation that royals can't enter into civil marriages isn't actually still valid. It was not a part of the RMA like scooter professes, but rather a part of a later law that has subsequently been repealed. The issue was solved well before Charles entered into his marriage, and had it actually still been in effect Charles would have followed his sister's example and married in Scotland.
There is this idea that Charles has misstepped in marrying Camilla and made it so that he can't inherit the throne. The idea is that either the royals are aware of this and are just keeping it a secret - either so Charles can steal the throne or so that we get a great shock when the Queen dies and William is proclaimed King - or else all their lawyers aren't smart enough to realize something that those of us creeping on the Internet have figured out.