Drew Dowdell

Allante' came out in 92-93

While I realize the attraction to the 85 Seville is subjective <I like them> in Cadillac's defense, they sold a huge number of them. They were very very popular in their day, so I can see why they included it. they just could have picked one in a more striking colour.

I drove an XR today, here are my impressions: 1. Interior, while not groundbreaking is attractive and high quality. 2. Gauges are awesome 3. Transmission is like butta.... got to play with the slap shift, it's fun on the twisties 4. Turn signal lever felt kind flimsy and out of place compaired to the rest of the switchgear. 5. Moraccan leather is hot 6. heated seats stay on after you shut the engine off till you open the car door 7. very tight turning radius 8. 3.6 is very willing to play, I have one in my CTS so this was expected Overall impression? It's a poor man's front wheel drive Cadillac CTS with a nicer styled interior.

Awesome ad! Though in the shorter spot, I'm not sure I would have jumped directly from 85 Seville to 07 XLR. They could have put the 98 Eldorado in there....

suppose there are religious interpretations, other than your own, that allow gay marriage? just saying....

I completely agree. Those who follow that faith are free to follow it. Where that becomes a problem is when people of faith try to force their faith onto others through civil law.

Do you say the same thing to infertile couples? Gay parents, on average, put more effort into being parents than heterosexual parents do. I'm not saying that gay parents make better parents than heterosexual ones, but similar to those infertile heterosexual couples, if you must make a huge legal, financial, and medical effort to even have the child in the first place, you make sure it's taken care of once you have it. The number of gay parents is relatively small simply because of that effort. The number of unwilling heterosexual parents greatly weighs down the "good parent" average. I can point you to any number of studies that show that the children of gay parents turn out to be boringly normal. We've kept this discussion very civil Razor, please continue to do so.

Actually, in NJ's case. NJ was the first state to legalize joint gay adoption.

I don't see that being the case at all. The Catholics can, and still do, deny people church weddings. Some of the Jewish faiths do it as well. No one has been forcing the churches to marry anyone they don't want to.

They found that the marriage law was only unconstitutional because the DP law did not make up for the inequity. Had the DP law been completely equal to the marriage law <as is the case in Vermont> the court would have likely ruled against the plaintiffs.

Yet again proof that GM could make a fully working model of Christ himself and there would still be people complaining that the water to wine function only dispenses a Merlot.

X3 MSRP $36,800 SRX MSRP $36,270 Touereg MSRP $37,410 ML350 MSRP $42,680 The only one that is much higher is the ML... and I'm sure there is a bit of price overlap there. point is, the 3 "other" interiors, yes including the Cadillac, the X3 interior in terms of design.

4 years ago, most 25 year old guys would be embarrassed to say they owned a Cadillac. Today, I tell people I have a CTS and it usually gets a "Wow, nice car man".

I think everyone here forgives you.

The court found that the existing marriage law was unconstitutional because it unlawfully restricted marriages to heterosexual unions. At the same time they found the domestic partnership law to be inadequate in providing rights, privileges and protections to same sex couples. In the end, both laws failed under the equal protections clause of the NJ Constitution. If the state court had thrown out the marriage law, they would have had to throw out the DP law as well. I think the reason the court took the actions they did is because they didn't want the existing system to be thrown into chaos while the legislature figured things out. The legislature actually doesn't have that 5th option at all. They must somehow provide equal protections to same sex couples. The decision can be read here. link fixed What I want to try to get across here is that this wasn't a court overstepping the lines. Issues of equality shouldn't be left up to a popular vote, but in this case, all the court said was the current laws are inadequate and that it is the legislatures job to remedy the situation. This decision was, by far, the sanest of all the court battles in this matter.

Is it a bad thing that I can't tell? Even after you pointed it out... I still really can't tell.

great name!

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