Drew Dowdell

I think the reason the court took this route, the ordering of the legislature that you don't like, is so they didn't have to throw out the entire marriage law and domestic partnership law. They had the foresight to know the turmoil that would cause. They took this route rather than throw the existing marriage system into chaos for 6 months.

What the court said was that there is no rational reason to restrict access to the civil legal protections of marriage to homosexual couples. The current marriage law is exclusionary. The domestic partnership law is inadaquate. So the court ordered the legislature to correct the inequality. Would you rather the court have struck down the existing marriage law entirely? Technically, they would be in their right to do so since they already found the law to be unconstitutional. The Legislature has 4 options to correct the inequality: 1. Include homosexuals in the current marriage law. 2. Correct the domestic partnerships law to be equal to marriage law in everything but name. 3. Reduce the current marriage law to the same level as the current domestic partnership law. <highly unlikely> 4. Eliminate both the marriage law and domestic partnership law. <completely absurd> As for not liking being told what to do, in cases of equality, when the majority is wrong, they're still wrong. George C. Wallace didn't like being told what to do either.

The Court gave the legislature the option of amending the current law <which is subject to the court's interpretation>, or provide an equal alternative. The court found that the existing domestic partnerships law in NJ was a "back of the bus", "separate but not equal" law and therefor was unconstitutional. The legislature doesn't have to create any new legislations at all. Either they amend the existing marriage law to include homosexuals or they amend the existing domestic partnership law to be legally equal to the marriage law in everything but name. The court is exactly within it's jurisdiction.

I'd rather see an updated Supra with an I6. The Avalon would be the only sedan I could see going RWD but they won't do it for packaging and fuel efficiency reasons.

As long as I have the same civil, legal rights as a heterosexual married couple, you can believe anything you want. I am still married in my heart and that's where it truly matters.

I like the colors but the materials on everything other than the seats look nothing special.

Doesn't matter to me what the state calls it as long as all the legal protections are the same. In my heart, I'm still married. The rest is just legal semantics.

Interestingly, the Aztek has a better residual value than a Rendevous

Wow! I would so buy that. I'd want the current version though.

That makes two of you apparently.

1997 Z34. We were already doing about 40 but then he punched it. I followed with the pedal to the floor. For a few moments, even at full throttle, he was pulling away from me, but in the end the CTS won. Dunno if he had mods other than the exhaust.

Try this: "If you don't test drive most of the cars in your price range, how can you possibly make an informed decision and not make the same mistake again?"

Service Advisor, I will forever hold you in suspicion.

X

Base Civics exist only on paper.

get them into something other than a j-body? if a new Cobalt is the price range they are looking in, what about low mileage CPO Lacrosses, Impalas, G6s?

Quick random trivia guys. Which Monte Carlo was it that gave my CTS 3.6 a run for it's money tonight? In the end I won, but for a moment I thought I was gonna get pwned. Hint: Not the 5.3

That could be extremely cool on a modern car if done right.

Staples in Micheal Jackson's favorite town

That's Camry, Accord, Impala territory.

Hey Fly, any way we can get a stock ticker for the big 2.5 on the front page?

I can do better than that. There are 1996 Fleetwoods and Roadmasters out there worth more than a 2001 ES

this has become a regular habit of mine

why does it matter as long as all 5 tests are consistent?