Gay marriage ban backers get unexpected support

[Sam I am]

I don't think we are. We just see this as a pointless wedge issue that is more a pet interest for people, and not really about liberty.

I see way too much of the

"It's a pointless wedge issue, but gay marriage should go unrecognized anyway"

around here

 

[whoisjohngalt]

DOMA is a violation of the Constitution on First Amendment grounds. It's a freedom of religion issue. The government cant define anything or choose not to enforce contracts.

Also, Ron Paul and the Constitution are not to be blindly followed dogma. I disagree with them both from time to time, and if you don't at least consider the fact that they are sometimes wrong, you should.

Government should be out of marriage, a position Ron has taken occasionally, but failed to back up with many of his votes or his rhetoric when pandering. It is also true that there should be no such thing as government marriage benefits, but in lieu of the ideal scenario where they don't exist, anyone entering into a marriage contract as defined by the parties to the contract should receive said benefits.

 

[jmdrake]

DOMA is a violation of the Constitution on First Amendment grounds. It's a freedom of religion issue. The government cant define anything or choose not to enforce contracts.

So now DOMA is a first amendment issue? And name one state that will not enforce an actual contract between two people who are gay. I'm talking about a will or a power of attorney or a power of attorney for healthcare or any other actual contract. Marriage as a "contract" is a legal fiction. The state tells two people "We're going to pretend that you signed an agreement stating that we can come in later and declare how much money one of you will have to pay the other in alimony even though no such agreement exists."

 

[jmdrake]

DOMA singles out 1 kind of contract over another. It's not unconstitutional per-se, and that means that activist federal judges shouldn't declare it as such, but it is bad law, and shouldn't have been passed.

Except marriage ain't a contract.

 

[jmdrake]

you should lurk moar, the answer here is going to be a resounding YES the problem people seem to have is they don't seem to realize that an unequal half-measure is the worst case scenario.

What you don't seem to understand is the only good scenario is disentangling the federal government from marriage as opposed to entangling it further. Get rid of the federal marriage "benefits" (they aren't "rights") and the issue goes away completely. Anyone who isn't lazy and isn't an idiot can draw up their own real marriage contracts in all 50 states and just call them "Combined will/power of attorney agreements".

 

[whoisjohngalt]

What you don't seem to understand is the only good scenario is disentangling the federal government from marriage as opposed to entangling it further. Get rid of the federal marriage "benefits" (they aren't "rights") and the issue goes away completely. Anyone who isn't lazy and isn't an idiot can draw up their own real marriage contracts in all 50 states and just call them "Combined will/power of attorney agreements".

I agree with you jmdrake. This is the heart of the issue, but unfortunately we currently have marriage "benefits" in the form of tax subsidies. The tax benefits are the issue because as you pointed out, most other issues can be settled with a formal contract.

I'm arguing though that if the government insists on unconstitutionally and undesirably providing tax subsidies to those who are married, they do not have the ability to define the word or practice selective enforcement even if a firm definition were established. If two people sign a piece of paper that says "We are married", the government should have to recognize it as marriage for the purpose of handing out their unconstitutional marriage "benefits".

 

[jmdrake]

I agree with you jmdrake. This is the heart of the issue, but unfortunately we currently have marriage "benefits" in the form of tax subsidies. The tax benefits are the issue because as you pointed out, most other issues can be settled with a formal contract.

I'm arguing though that if the government insists on unconstitutionally and undesirably providing tax subsidies to those who are married, they do not have the ability to define the word or practice selective enforcement even if a firm definition were established. If two people sign a piece of paper that says "We are married", the government should have to recognize it as marriage for the purpose of handing out their unconstitutional marriage "benefits".

Okay. Here's my angle. I'm willing to bet that if the average Christian conservative was fully informed that the best way to "save traditional marriage" was to get the federal government out of it, he/she would agree to get the federal government out of it.

But here's the funny thing. Everybody seems key to talk about the "marriage tax benefit". Everyone ignores the marriage tax penalty.

See: http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm

So by getting married gays may end up paying higher taxes. Oh the irony!

More on the marriage tax penalty/benefit.

http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/Getting-Married/INF12006.html

Marriage penalty or marriage bonus?

You've undoubtedly heard about the so-called marriage tax penalty, the quirk in the tax law that sometimes makes married couples pay more income tax than they would if they had remained single.

Here's a little secret: Many married couples actually get a marriage bonus, paying less income tax than if they stayed single. At issue is the graduated nature of the tax system, which applies higher tax rates to higher levels of income. When you pile one person's income on top of another's on a joint tax return, it can sometimes push some of that income into a higher tax bracket.

Congress has taken steps to reduce the impact of the marriage penalty. For 2010, the ceilings for the top of the 10 percent and 15 percent brackets on joint returns are precisely twice as high as the ceilings on single returns (that was not always the case). As incomes rise into higher brackets, though, the tax ceilings on a joint return aren't quite double the ceilings on a single return. That can cause a marriage penalty, but it doesn't guarantee one.

The more unequal two spouses' incomes, the more likely that combining them on a joint return will pull some of the higher-earner's income into a lower bracket. That's when the marriage bonus occurs.

On the other hand, when the two spouses have more equal incomes, and they are both substantial, the odds of getting hit with the the marriage penalty go up.

So it's really not accurate to say the federal government went around trying to give a "tax benefit" to married people. What happened is people realized how badly married people were being screwed by the tax code and tried to fix it. The fix means that some married people benefit and some do not.

Now consider this fact. There is a wage disparity between men and women. So a heterosexual couple is more likely to benefit from the tax code. But check this out. Same sex couples are, by definition, less likely to have an income disparity which means their taxes are more likely to go up based on their getting married.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Okay. Here's my angle. I'm willing to bet that if the average Christian conservative was fully informed that the best way to "save traditional marriage" was to get the federal government out of it, he/she would agree to get the federal government out of it.

But here's the funny thing. Everybody seems key to talk about the "marriage tax benefit". Everyone ignores the marriage tax penalty.

See: http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm

So by getting married gays may end up paying higher taxes. Oh the irony!

Personally, I don't understand why anyone wants to get married (in the legal sense of the word) anyways. Even it's a tax penalty, a penalty is just a negative benefit, and selective enforcement is still not allowed or desirable.

It seems everyone agrees, generally, that the Federal Government needs to stay out of marriage. I'm contesting that government of all levels, including state and local, SHOULD stay out of and have no authority to be involved in defining, regulating, etc marriage in anyway. It is either a religious institution or a private contract.

What I don't understand is how people can understand and apply the idea "just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal" to arguments involving something like the drug war, but it doesn't translate to the issue of same sex marriage. Personally, I don't think homosexuality is wrong or sinful, but those who do seem to use their moral convictions as justification for allowing government involvement.

 

[thoughtomator]

I see someone who shall for the moment go unnamed has resorted to neg rep in lieu of attempting to answer my challenge.

Challenge still stands. Will "gay marriage" supporters please state the original purpose for which human societies developed the custom of marriage, or kindly STFU and stop flogging issues intended to produce divisions among RP supporters.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I see someone who shall for the moment go unnamed has resorted to neg rep in lieu of attempting to answer my challenge.

Challenge still stands. Will "gay marriage" supporters please state the original purpose for which human societies developed the custom of marriage, or kindly STFU and stop flogging issues intended to produce divisions among RP supporters.

Marriage was developed by the early societies so that the multiple wives and children in each family unit had a lasting connection to the father of their children for protection and nourishment.

 

[jmdrake]

Personally, I don't understand why anyone wants to get married (in the legal sense of the word) anyways. Even it's a tax penalty, a penalty is just a negative benefit, and selective enforcement is still not allowed or desirable.

It seems everyone agrees, generally, that the Federal Government needs to stay out of marriage. I'm contesting that government of all levels, including state and local, SHOULD stay out of and have no authority to be involved in defining, regulating, etc marriage in anyway. It is either a religious institution or a private contract.

What I don't understand is how people can understand and apply the idea "just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal" to arguments involving something like the drug war, but it doesn't translate to the issue of same sex marriage. Personally, I don't think homosexuality is wrong or sinful, but those who do seem to use their moral convictions as justification for allowing government involvement.

*facepalm* That's just it. Gay marriage is NOT illegal! It's is totally legal in all 50 states! Now heterosexual polygamy is illegal. You can get arrested and put in prison for that. If a polygamist has a private ceremony that even looks like a wedding he/she faces prosecution. Prior to Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage was illegal in some states. That couple faced arrest for being married. Having something not recognized by the state is not the same as it being illegal.

Since you brought up the drug war, let me try to make an analogy although I know it will be a stretch. Say if marijuana was completely decriminalized, but state governments refused to "license" its use. Say if the result was that people could grow their own pot, transport it, sell it, etc. The only drawback is that Monstanto and other gene companies were prohibited from licensing GMO marijuana the way they are able to license cotton, corn etc. Under such a scheme would you consider marijuana "illegal"?

 

[The Free Hornet]

I already said that the problem is the federal income tax and federal "benefits" and they should be abolished. Further I was specifically comparing the marriage contract, which is an agreement between two people and not an agreement with the federal government, and contracts that people can get that do the same thing. So no. I don't owe the forum a retraction. You may though.

What would I retract?:

This is what you wrote:

Right. And in all 50 sta[te]s gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do.

The last statement is false.

If federal taxes were eliminated, then your statement would be less false. Social security - or at least spousal benefits - would also have to be eliminated (or made to be transferable with no or equal penalty to whomever the recipient desires: children, wife, homeless guy down the street). Another wrinkle in your lie are state adoptions laws:

The Florida appeals court’s ruling now decreases the number of states that expressly restrict adoption by same-sex couples to three—Michigan, Mississippi, and Nebraska.

The Michigan attorney general issued an opinion in 2004 that prevents same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions from adopting children in Michigan. Single gay and lesbian individuals, however, may petition to adopt.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/state_antigay_adoption.html

Why the hell would you state "all 50"? You cannot just contract your way through family planning issues. This is not unlike prenuptial agreements that often have no bearing on custody issues. The contracts do little-to-nothing and do not change state law or family court practices! "Prenuptial agreements in all U.S. states are not allowed to regulate issues relating to the children of the marriage, in particular, custody and access issues - Wikipedia."

If you want to be anti-gay, then be anti-gay. I don't care if you are a racist or a homophobe. What I find intolerable on a discussion board are liars. I see no interpretation that makes your statement true. Other posters have made this mistake. They pretend that because contracts can do most things, that they can do all things. I say "pretend" and not "assume" because you ought to know better. I.e., if you are ignorant you are willfully ignorant. There is no excuse.

Admit you have a bias and stop pretending that the "whites-only bathroom" is the same as the "colored-folk-only bathroom".

You could have said
a) "yes, I should have excluded that in my statement or made it more clear"

or

b) "please see where I already state that Federal taxes ought to be eliminated" (and leave it at that, not suggest there is something for me to retract - there isn't)

or

c) "most of the same things" instead of "all of the same things" or "most states" instead "50 states"

Instead, you ask me for a retraction [edit: you did say "may" - but there is zero to retract]. The scope of my criticism was limited to the statements I quoted:

Right. And in all 50 sta[te]s gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do.

There is nothing for me to retract in stating that the above is a BOLD-FACED LIE (for three reasons).


Nor does the entirety of your post make the limitations clear (reposted so nobody thinks you are being taken out of context unfairly):

Right. And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do. The only thing they can't do is get a marriage license in certain states.



Article 4 section 1 does not cover licenses of any kind. If you get a hunting license in one state it's not automatically transferable to another. Same thing for licenses to practice medicine, law etc. Drivers licenses are somewhat transferable, but if you move to another state you are expected to get a new license which is subject to that state's rules. If you're 16 years old and have a unrestricted license in one state, then you move to another state where drivers licenses are restricted for people under the age of 21, your new license will be restricted just like that of the 16 year old who was born in that state. (I'm not sure what the rule is if you are just passing through). So DOMA is constitutional. And even if it wasn't, states could achieve the same goal by treating marriage licenses the same as drivers licenses, requiring their "renewal" when you move to another state and just not "renewing" licenses for gays.

The best way forward is to disentangle the federal government from marriage. That's the source of all the marriage "benefits" beyond the basic rights anyone could get through contract to anybody else regardless of whether or not there is a romantic attachment.

You reached too far.

You can retract or go to the bucket. Your choice.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I see someone who shall for the moment go unnamed has resorted to neg rep in lieu of attempting to answer my challenge.

Challenge still stands. Will "gay marriage" supporters please state the original purpose for which human societies developed the custom of marriage, or kindly STFU and stop flogging issues intended to produce divisions among RP supporters.

Are you seriously asking somebody to answer a question that predates written history?:

History of marriage by culture
A pair of wedding rings

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[13] Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[14] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[15] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[16] Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[17]

Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture

To answer your questions:

A) NOBODY RELAIBLY KNOWS but the evidence posted is homo-inclusive not homo-exclusive

B) WHO THE HELL CARES?

... and stop flogging issues intended to produce divisions among RP supporters.

The bigots are not building a coalition. Let everyone marry anyone and anything so all can enjoy the three rings of marriage: engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffering.

 

[The Free Hornet]

More differences from and old list, but I want to focus on one issue. How do you inflict the PAIN of divorce and divorce court and endless hearings without marriage??? How does one plead for half or more of an ex-partner's stuff without the Kafkaesque family law court system? And force them to give it over against their own will even without a contract?! Marriage does that shit. A contract won't be the same. Different courts not divorce industry lawyers. You could resolve a contract dispute among yourselves but a divorce can put everything through a Judge. Even stupid shit like whether or not you come to the door to pick up kids or can wait in the driveway. Divorce isn't always so much ending a marriage as it is entering a new stage of marriage.

Different is not equal. Nor is it the same.

Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships

If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

[The Free Hornet]

Assume the 1,138 Federal issues related to marriage were eliminated or relegated to "contract" status any two people can enter (LOL). How does one know that contracts can do EVERYTHING all 50 fucking states do with marriage and that these contracts are actually valid the way a marriage is and respected to the same degree across state-lines (i.e., Michigan may acknowledge marriages from Ohio but not civil unions). A contract that is not upheld is pointless.

Why would someone take the position that contracts could handle these things in "ALL 50" states? Each state would have to have a law, "[law]Civil unions are exactly like marriages except we call them 'civil unions' so as to not upset the homophobes.[/law]"

List of 1,138 Federal Rights, Benefits, and Privileges of Marriage

General AccountingOffice

January 23, 2004



"We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resou...al-rights-benefits-and-privileges-of-marriage

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Assume the 1,138 Federal issues related to marriage were eliminated or relegated to "contract" status any two people can enter (LOL). How does one know that contracts can do EVERYTHING all 50 fucking states do with marriage and that these contracts are actually valid the way a marriage is and respected to the same degree across state-lines (i.e., Michigan may acknowledge marriages from Ohio but not civil unions). A contract that is not upheld is pointless.

Why would someone take the position that contracts could handle these things in "ALL 50" states? Each state would have to have a law, "[law]Civil unions are exactly like marriages except we call them 'civil unions' so as to not upset the homophobes.[/law]"

Marriages are already only issued by whatever state the license is acquired in. (hence the minister/JOTP says "by the power vested in me by the State of ____") It wouldn't be a significant change.

 

[The Free Hornet]

And one more thing, the lying homophobes get wrong (I'm fine with the non-lying homophobes): "Marriage" is singular and "contracts" is plural. Who gives a damn?

The rights, benefits, drawbacks, and bullshit of marriage is executed in a single marriage license or contract. It is "one and done" for the most part. If the state passes a law saying "married couples can do X" then it is likely to include all married couples even retroactively. If courts interpret anything affecting marriages, it will affect "marriages" not all other contracts necessarily.

What if you start to sign these jmdrake contracts, but then one partner stops halfway through? How do you bind every contract into one? There must be a lawyer who can rush to jmdrake's defense and tell us how this is done for "ALL 50" states and "ALL STATE" issues related to marriage. Or what if you do not update the contracts the way marriage law can be updated? Granted, you may not want marriage or divorce law changed against your will or after your marriage, but these things will happen. What if one partner wants their "contracts" to follow all changes to marriage law but another partner does not? What if a judge rightly decrees that one cannot bind themselves to a changing contract, thus removing the marriage-like chaos from the gay contracts?

Is there a one-form contract that states accept that does what jmdrake claims? Is there one that does even half of what he claims?

This would be an omnibus contract. I suspect it would have to be formulated not unlike a "civil union". But not all 50 states have civil unions so how can jmdrake possibly be telling the truth by any stretch of the imagination?! If it could be done, it would be, but it hasn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States

 

[The Free Hornet]

Marriages are already only issued by whatever state the license is acquired in. (hence the minister/JOTP says "by the power vested in me by the State of ____") It wouldn't be a significant change.

Yes, I get your point here. They may state, "we will acknowledge gay marriages but not straight marriages" (assuming that doesn't violate their own state constitution). I should have left that issue out. My concern is the larger claim that contracts are a substitute for marriage including all of the negative aspects like divorce and dealing with children. Does jmdrake have some gay insight that gays only want to visit each other in hospice and have a joint Macy's credit card? If jmdrake can speak on behalf of the gay community, I am very willing to hear him speak. But he ought to assert himself as speaking for that community and assure us that ALL RIGHTS in ALL 50 STATES are included exactly as he has stated.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. The handwaving notion that contracts are an equal or even similar substitute for marriage, is mind boggling. Some things, yes. All things? No fucking way.

There ought to be proof and it would be easy to find as it would be codifed in law in ALL 50 states as claimed were it true which it isn't.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Right. And in all 50 stays gays can enter into contracts with whoever they want. Those contracts can do all of the same things marriage can do. The only thing they can't do is get a marriage license in certain states [did you mean damn near every state or "certain states"?].

jmdrake, perhaps you have a business drawing up contracts for gay couples that want the same thing as marriage?

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

 

[phill4paul]

The cost of a marriage licence in N.C. is $60.00. How much does it cost to have a lawyer draft contracts to insure that you get some of the benefits provided? I say some because The Free Hornet is providing much needed understanding of the laws and where they stand regarding 'Union Contracts' and Federally, and State, recognized 'Marriage Contracts.'

Legally 'recognized' Marriage certificate =/= "Union' contracts. Once you fully understand this you understand why same sex couples wish to subject themselves to the same kinda jus primae noctis.