You know what they say…

You get the government you deserve. That’s the crappiest truism ever, because it means people who really don’t deserve it get it, too.

For anyone unaware, here’s the rundown on Texas’s just-passed Proposition 2.

Prop 2 says that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and a woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions can not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage. That’s any.

Is the city of Dallas a political subdivision of the state? Because right now, the city recognizes not only domestic partnerships, but same-sex domestic partnerships. Is the city of Dallas breaking the law? How do they get in compliance? By rescinding their benefits? To any two people in something identical or similar to marriage but not really marriage?

By voting for this proposition, supported with vigor by such illustrious organizations as the KKK, Texans have said that it’s worth potentially negating any civil unions, domestic partnerships, and common-law marriages just to make sure that gays and lesbians can’t get married in Texas. Even though they already couldn’t get married in Texas. And if they managed to get married anywhere else, it wasn’t recognized in Texas. But you know, there just can’t be enough laws and constitutional amendments to make sure that homosexuals know that their relationships are not regarded as having any real value to society.

According to the group No Nonsense in November, nearly 90 Texas-based Fortune 500 companies now offer some type of benefits to domestic partners. Because of this amendment, these benefits could be lost or limited, regardless of whether an unmarried couple in a domestic partnership is same-sex or not.

So in essence, anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, who has managed to provide health insurance, life insurance, and death benefits to a partner through an employer or other legal means, may get a rude awakening thanks to Prop 2.

Here’s my hypothetical situation. “One man and one woman” have lived in a common-law marriage in Galveston for fourteen years. They have three children. A Katrina-ish Category 5 hurricane hits Galveston. The man, sole financial provider of his family, is killed and all their belongings are blown away. FEMA and the Red Cross funnel relief money to the state of Texas, and the state of Texas says, “Sorry, lady. We don’t recognize your so-called marriage. Request for assistance denied.” And the man’s wonderfully progressive employer, who recognized his relationship, is helpless when their insurance provider says, “Sorry that he died, but according to the state of Texas, you weren’t really married to him so we’re not going to pay you the half a million dollars that the insured thought would provide your children some security if he died. Go ahead and sue us; the law is on our side, and we’ve got better lawyers and more money than you. Or sign this agreement not to sue us, and we’ll give you a thousand dollars per child.”

But wait. What if the man lives and the woman dies? Well, they still weren’t “married,” so no benefits to him. But at least he’s still got his job, right? And as he tries to rebuild his life and his children’s lives without any of the financial help that he needs, I’m sure he’ll be a sterling employee. I’m sure he can find great childcare solutions. I’m sure the kids will flourish in a two-bedroom apartment with a grieving father. People are resilient, right?

Aw, come on, Beck, we all know that insurance companies race to pay out benefits that they might not have to pay. And health insurance providers would never use this loophole to avoid paying for the medical problems of the surviving “one woman” or “one man” and their three children. And after the hurricanes that have afflicted the Gulf Coast, we know that FEMA has the best interests of all citizens at heart and responds quickly and with razor-sharp organization. And the Red Cross didn’t deny anyone assistance after 9/11 just because they weren’t one man and one woman in a legal marriage.

So I’m crazy, right? Right?