[transplant99]

Huh? Where does the Charter define marriage as being between a man and a woman?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

The Charter doesn't define marriage at all, but it does grant the following:

According to a Supreme court decision, which was based on the BNA act and then again on the COR. However, you are correct as there is no definition of marriage in the COR, rather a long held interpretation of what marriage is.

In a similar vein, former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest, speaking on behalf of four judges in the majority in the Egan decision, the last case by the way where the Supreme Court addressed the definition of marriage directly, famously said the following:

"Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual."

The statement was also written in 1995, over a decade after adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it remains the only commentary on the fundamental definition of marriage in any Supreme Court decision

And how did they reach this conclusion?

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

Again, this is getting way off topic, but the only side that is having something forced on them, (and it's by way of losing the secularness of the definition of marriage), are the ones who oppose allowing gays to be called "married".

Whether they are right or wrong, I believe they have just as a legitimate argument as the other side. And no, that doesn't make them bigots.