I own both of these lenses, and, for now, am keeping them both. Under normal conditions I use the Tamron more. It is a very versatile lens that produces great results. It also has a beautiful build quality and fantastic warranty. F/2.8 is a big deal; don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It not only gives you more flexibility in low light, but also opens up more creative options.
That being said, the 24-105L is probably the best travel lens for full frame that Canon makes. I chose it over the Tamron for a recent trip I returned from yesterday. I supplemented it for lower light with the 40mm f/2.8 and the 135 f/2L. I had to do three portrait sessions while traveling, too, and it is a great lens for shooting environmental portraits of larger groups when you don't need too narrow a depth of field (although the 135L was my primary portrait lens for couples/individuals for obvious reasons. The biggest reason I took the Canon is the point that someone else raised: filters. I still don't have a great collection of 82mm filters, and unless I get more lens with this filter size, I probably won't invest in them. A big factor is my Cokin P square filter system. I have an adapter for the 82mm, but it vignettes until about 32mm, which limits landscape options. I can shoot the Canon 24-105L at about 25mm without vignetting.
Both are good choices for different reasons. Only you can determine which type of shooting you will do more often. I have extensively reviewed the Tamron on my website and done a review as a wedding photographer as well. The review link is in the "reviews" section here.