"Thirdly, the process that was undertaken to rewrite the definition of marriage has been absolutely repellant. Attempting to litigate a change in a social institution based on some misguided notion of "right" is a deplorable practice in and of itself. If this was a widely suported initiative it would simply have been raised directly in Parliament."

One of the jobs of the judiciary is strike down laws that are contrary to the charter. They did that. Your objection to the process amounts to an outright rejection of the charter as trumping other law.

"Fourthly, its provided another case of judicial activism and undermined democracy. There is no provision for "sexual orientation" in the Charter of Rights and freedom to begin with."  

You are entitled to your opinion. However, the weight of legal opinion leans heavily in the opposite direction.

"Fifthly, the lack of any sound argument for gay marriage has been absolutely appalling."

Are you serious? There are plenty of reasons for wanting gay marriage. One that seems locked in the closet is that it will help normalize homosexual relationships. This will likely help reduce appalling afflictions that plague gay youth (e.g., monstrously high suicide rates, drug abuse).

The arguments offered up against gay marriage are quite simply laughable. I hardly know whether to laugh or cry when I hear someone claim that allowing people to marry people of the same sex will damage the institution. The fact of the matter is that gay marriages have been taking place over a year now and no one is any the worse for wear. In 10 years time this will also be true.

"Sixthly, the burden of proof for rewriting thousands of years of tradition and practice is really on those suggesting a change and it hasn't been met."

The opposition to gay marriage collapsed because there are no good arguments for saying homosexuality is wrong. This is akin what happened with women and the vote. The definition of a person did not change. What changed was opinions about who met the critera. With that the bedrock upon which opposition to women voting was based collosped. The burden of proof was then upon those who wanted to continue denying women the right to vote.