Dallas GOP Politician to Kids: Marry White or Else

[Ghost of LL 15544]

Vic Cunningham, who is in the GOP runoff for a seat on the Dallas County Commissioners Court, set up a trust fund for his kids.  As with most trust funds, there are distributions at certain points.  One of those points is marriage, but only if the marriage is to a white, straight Christian.

When I was in criminal clinic back in law school, I practiced before Judge Cunningham.  I can't say that I'm surprised by this.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Ghost of LL

[Gil Bang 26048]

Jesus.

[David Dennison 18951]

Just now, Gil Bang said:

Jesus.

Not marriage material.

[Ghost of LL 15544]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not marriage material.

Too Jewish.

[David Dennison 18951]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

Too Jewish.

And swarthy.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not marriage material.

That, my friend, was beautiful and perfect timing.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19431]

and liberal

[Assholehorn 6]

I'm sure every minority that found himself in his court got fair and impartial justice. 

Burn. This. Country. Down. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Assholehorn

[TwiceHorn 31550]

Whole family sounds FUBAR.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13588]

So adultery it is.

[Post Oak 20278]

Take this to the "What is a Trumpkin" thread

[CooterBrown 18032]

Guaranteed his daughters love some black cock.

[Gil Bang 26048]

Funny part is, you'd expect somebody that racist would have different levels of "white".

German vs Irish...the Damn Dirty Dutch, etc..

 

[futureman 22552]

meh.  you people just get off on being upset. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

Bildo and Vichead are strong nicknames. 

[bolverk 29728]

I call shenanigans. That doesn't sound like the Vic I know from Dallas County.

[bolverk 29728]

meh.  you people just get off on being upset. 

tap tap tap

Is this sarcasm meter working?

check check one two check

[Brian Fantana 6691]

1 hour ago, futureman said:

meh.  you people just get off on being upset. 

Eat your own ass

[blackmarketbaby 118]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Eat your own ass

I've read your name Brianna until now

[Brian Fantana 6691]

Condolences on your brain tumor

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Should I make that out from brianna

[futureman 22552]

9 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Eat your own ass

if I could, I would

[DanRydell 799]

It’s nice to hear a Republican publicly acknowledge that “family values” is code for bringing the Klan back to its former glory.

[TwiceHorn 31550]

Would such a clause even be enforceable? Brings to mind restricive covenants in deeds. 

[RPM 26360]

In No Name City the prevailing law is mining law.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Would such a clause even be enforceable? Brings to mind restricive covenants in deeds. 

Why wouldn't it?  It's his freaking trust.  However morbid and misplaced his qualifiers might be, whose fucking business is it besides his, with regard to who has access to his money?

[burntorangebongos 10752]

Vic Cunningham, who is in the GOP runoff for a seat on the Dallas County Commissioners Court, set up a trust fund for his kids.  As with most trust funds, there are distributions at certain points.  One of those points is marriage, but only if the marriage is to a white, straight Christian.

 

Whose business? Anyone voting for Dallas County Commissioners Court. It is a definite "good to know".

[safe sex 11791]

It's too bad a good number of people whose business it is will react with "Well, I mean, who wouldn't want to keep their bloodline pure?"

[achooloco 1086]

40 minutes ago, slorch said:

Why wouldn't it?  It's his freaking trust.  However morbid and misplaced his qualifiers might be, whose fucking business is it besides his, with regard to who has access to his money?

well the restatement of trusts i think states that the qualifiers can be too morbid or misplaced. but to answer your question, it is definitely a balancing act that depends on a state's definition of good public policy and what covenants it deems as too restrictive. If the restrictions are too severe, they can be argued as against good public policy and thus void. Or not. think the feinberg case in illinois says you can restrict but no idea if that case is still good (Public policy in Illinois is to support, encourage, and safeguard the institution of marriage, and to promote marital harmony where possible).  but you could argue that in texas, it is against good public policy to restrict marriage in order to preserve racial purity. but i think that'd be a case brought by the disinherited and decided by the courts (sorry, too lazy right now other than to do 2 min of google searches).

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

4 hours ago, trauma babe said:

It's too bad a good number of people whose business it is will react with "Well, I mean, who wouldn't want to keep their bloodline pure?"

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2951905

You can find a whole thread of them here.

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13528]

Texags always brings the fun like opinions that this shouldn’t affect the guys ability to be a public servant assuming he can separate his private and public beliefs.    Narrator: he can’t. 

[TwiceHorn 31550]

4 hours ago, achooloco said:

well the restatement of trusts i think states that the qualifiers can be too morbid or misplaced. but to answer your question, it is definitely a balancing act that depends on a state's definition of good public policy and what covenants it deems as too restrictive. If the restrictions are too severe, they can be argued as against good public policy and thus void. Or not. think the feinberg case in illinois says you can restrict but no idea if that case is still good (Public policy in Illinois is to support, encourage, and safeguard the institution of marriage, and to promote marital harmony where possible).  but you could argue that in texas, it is against good public policy to restrict marriage in order to preserve racial purity. but i think that'd be a case brought by the disinherited and decided by the courts (sorry, too lazy right now other than to do 2 min of google searches).

Right.  Granted, there is probably more public interest in deed restrictions than testamentary restrictions, but the threshold state action seems to be present in relying on the courts to enforce them, although I suppose there is more court action in a will than a trust, but a trust has as much court intervention as a deed.

[Dirk X West 772]

On 5/18/2018 at 7:40 PM, CooterBrown said:

Guaranteed his daughters love some black cock.

No doubt that they love it, slobber on it, take it up the arse on the regular.

[Brisketexan 105431]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right.  Granted, there is probably more public interest in deed restrictions than testamentary restrictions, but the threshold state action seems to be present in relying on the courts to enforce them, although I suppose there is more court action in a will than a trust, but a trust has as much court intervention as a deed.

I would think that it would only face the question of enforceability in the event of breach of the covenant.  So, if his precious daughter wants to marry a black dude, she can go to court to seek to have that provision held unenforceable as a matter of public policy.  And I strongly suspect that a court would find the requirement of marriage enforceable, but the racial requirement unenforceable....the interesting tightrope to walk would be the "christian" requirement.

But, back to the main point: he's a racist POS, and he'll probably win, because that sort of shit is a POSITIVE in today's GOP, not a negative.  His victory party will surely be LIT.

[Gil Bang 26048]

10 hours ago, slorch said:

Why wouldn't it?  It's his freaking trust house.  However morbid and misplaced his qualifiers might be, whose fucking business is it besides his, with regard to who has access to his money real estate?

slippery slope?

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

slippery slope?

I view it the same way. Gov't has no place in dictating or making demands on the discretionary decisions of the individual's  estate. 

 

Couple of folks in this thread wanna play like there is some protected class in this regard. Crazy pills. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by slorch

[Brian Fantana 6691]

Racists have no place in government.

[Brisketexan 105431]

I view it the same way. Gov't has no place in dictating or making demands on the discretionary decisions of the individual's  estate. 
 
Couple of folks in this thread wanna play like there is some protected class in this regard. Crazy pills. 

Not a protected class issue. Rather, if you want to enforce a legal relationship in court, it can’t violate public policy. He couldn’t condition a trust distribution on the recipient stabbing someone, either. Just like if you and I had a contract that was effective only if neither one of us ever did business with a black guy, that condition would be unenforceable in court.

Racists have thousands of places in government.

FIF accuracy.

[Brandywine 1317]

This state is full of elected people like that who have the same feelings. He'll probably get elected.

[achooloco 1086]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

I view it the same way. Gov't has no place in dictating or making demands on the discretionary decisions of the individual's  estate. 

 

Couple of folks in this thread wanna play like there is some protected class in this regard. Crazy pills. 

wait, what? i don't inherently disagree with your viewpoint, it is in fact my first inclination.  ok yeah in an ideal world why would anyone listen to the government/etc/anyone that tried to tell them/me what to do with MY money? fuck that and fuck them. but for me there is a difference between what i'd like and what makes sense for an efficient and productive society. if older people that are either dead/dying or generally past reproductive age, can limit future generations for decades after the grantor has kicked the bucket (rule of perpetuities holla!) then society in general suffers. jefferson had it right, society belongs to the living.  and our justice system generally agrees i think, i'm guessing back to english common law but don't quote me on that.   what is better for society (people can fuck who they want) will overrule one's own desires when push comes to shove.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1. This has to be in response to one of his daughters getting boned by a black dude. Otherwise, why the fuck would you put this in your will?

2. And he thought that was a disgrace, and now it's all over the media, and it's hurting his political career, so haha. 

3. My cousins in rural North Texas have a passel of mixed race kids and it's awesome. (Not rural North Texas, but my cousins who hooked up with black dudes up there are doing better than the ones who hooked up with my fellow crackers.) Family bonds know no color, on their end or yours, unless you make it that way, like this dick. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, achooloco said:

wait, what? i don't inherently disagree with your viewpoint, it is in fact my first inclination.  ok yeah in an ideal world why would anyone listen to the government/etc/anyone that tried to tell them/me what to do with MY money? fuck that and fuck them. but for me there is a difference between what i'd like and what makes sense for an efficient and productive society. if older people that are either dead/dying or generally past reproductive age, can limit future generations for decades after the grantor has kicked the bucket (rule of perpetuities holla!) then society in general suffers. jefferson had it right, society belongs to the living.  and our justice system generally agrees i think, i'm guessing back to english common law but don't quote me on that.   what is better for society (people can fuck who they want) will overrule one's own desires when push comes to shove.

Couldn't disagree more.

 

It's that guy's estate.  It isn't public monies or assets.  Unlike Brisket's example of requiring a stabbing, dictating to one's offspring who or how they marry is hardly unique or a violation of any rights.  The offspring carry marry who the hell the want, with no restrictions from the estate.  The restrictions are limited to access to his assets.

 

Y'all are cool with the gov't influencing/ dictating that access?

 

I am not.

[Brisketexan 105431]

Couldn't disagree more.
 
It's that guy's estate.  It isn't public monies or assets.  Unlike Brisket's example of requiring a stabbing, dictating to one's offspring who or how they marry is hardly unique or a violation of any rights.  The offspring carry marry who the hell the want, with no restrictions from the estate.  The restrictions are limited to access to his assets.
 
Y'all are cool with the gov't influencing/ dictating that access?
 
I am not.

You wanna use we the people’s courts to enforce your racist proviso? Sorry, you’re SOL.

It’s really that simple. You can write whatever racist edict you want. You just can’t use my courts to enforce it.

[Guest]

Follow the law just applies in situations where all parties agree, right?

 

The court’s opinion on my provisions of my estate is irrelevant, beyond stipulations requiring violation of the law.

 

If I tell my kid I’ll pay for his school as ling as it’s not Baylor, there’s no problem right?  Individual choice.

If I leave simialr provisions in my will, what is the difference?  The gov’t should have zero say in that.

Z-fucking-ro.

You seem to view liberty as requiring agreement across all parties or that it is somehow in agreement with PC bullshit or to the judge’s liking.  What happens when the judge disagrees with YOU?  However racist the views may be of the perp, it is absolutely his choice how his estate should be divided.  There should be no reqirements of fairness or equal access.

 

For all of the bernards and ‘gov’t is scary as shit’ people on here, I don’t see why more people aren’t concerned as fuck with your take.  My estate/ will is my business, and so is the allocation of such. I’m assuming you’d equally embrace a judge’s ruling that a mixed race couple doesn’t rate their percentage of an inheritance as prescribed by a legal will, because it’s an affront to his ‘sensibilities.’

Edited May 21, 2018 by slorch

[DigglerontheHoof 21254]

He's a racist piece of shit but we're a state full of racist pieces of shit, so this will not hurt his chances. 

[seven 1368]

And it's all his gay brother's fault that he's a racist 

[lemonlime 5503]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

 

For all of the bernards and ‘gov’t is scary as shit’ people on here, I don’t see why more people aren’t concerned as fuck with your take.  My estate/ will is my business, and so is the allocation of such. I’m assuming you’d equally embrace a judge’s ruling that a mixed race couple doesn’t rate their percentage of an inheritance as prescribed by a legal will, because it’s an affront to his ‘sensibilities.’

But you're fine with the government deciding who is a "white, straight Christian"?   The court could decide if the spouse's brief lesbian affair in college means she isn't straight.  Or who qualifies as a "Christian."  Or whether someone who is hispanic can also be "white."

You can write whatever racist, horrible crap you want in your will.  But the government, using our tax dollars, should not be brought in to enforce that crap.

[Brisketexan 105431]

Follow the law just applies in situations where all parties agree, right?
 
The court’s opinion on my provisions of my estate is irrelevant, beyond stipulations requiring violation of the law.
 
If I tell my kid I’ll pay for his school as ling as it’s not Baylor, there’s no problem right?  Individual choice.
If I leave simialr provisions in my will, what is the difference?  The gov’t should have zero say in that.
Z-fucking-ro.
You seem to view liberty as requiring agreement across all parties or that it is somehow in agreement with PC bullshit or to the judge’s liking.  What happens when the judge disagrees with YOU?  However racist the views may be of the perp, it is absolutely his choice how his estate should be divided.  There should be no reqirements of fairness or equal access.
 
For all of the bernards and ‘gov’t is scary as shit’ people on here, I don’t see why more people aren’t concerned as fuck with your take.  My estate/ will is my business, and so is the allocation of such. I’m assuming you’d equally embrace a judge’s ruling that a mixed race couple doesn’t rate their percentage of an inheritance as prescribed by a legal will, because it’s an affront to his ‘sensibilities.’

Slorch: “it’s my land, I can decided what happens to it after I die, so I can put a restriction on it so it can’t go to a black person. My land, my business, government stay out.”

Except, of course, racial deed restrictions have long ago been found UNENFORCEABLE as a matter of law.

You can put whatever wishes YOU want in your will, trust, etc. But if you’re ever going to use OUR courts to enforce those provisions, then they can’t violate public policy (which is not a whim of the judge - it’s reflected in acts passed by the legislative branch). So, you can put in all the racial provisos and restrictions that you want; maybe your heirs will abide by them. But if they don’t, you can’t use the people’s courts to enforce them.

[Guest]

Fuck it.  I’ll just sell it all and donate to Trump.

 

Personally, if I had a kid who strayed from our beliefs and I certainly don’t mean race related; I’d just straight up cut them out of the will.  No provisions, no interpretation.  Just a “ Hey you knew what the score was and you ignored it.  Now we ignore you.”  It would have to be something agregious like murder or some shit towards the family.  I’d say the odds of my younger son marrying a non-white woman are about 3-1 or so, considering his dating history.  

I’ve zero issue with that and my feelings on the subject are not why I objected to the subject of the thread.  I just feel the gov’t shouldn’t have a say.  Within existing laws, execute the will.  IDGAF about anyone’s butt getting hurt.

[seven 1368]

Slorch, no one is shocked that you support the racist in this ordeal.