Abraham had his servant vow to find Isaac an idolatrous but ethnically similar wife.
The servant later restated Abraham’s words: “go to my father’s family and to my own clan, and get a wife for my son.” In the following generation, Isaac and Rebeka repeated this process with Jacob.
In the 1960s, the trial judge in – the case in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage – wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage.
Furthermore, one of Nehemiah's objections to interracial marriage was based on the bi-racial children’s spoken language (“[they] did not know how to speak the language of Judah”).
In neither Ezra nor Nehemiah was the concern of a purely religious nature.
When Abraham sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac he told him to return to his own ethnic group to get her: “Put your hand under my thigh.
I want you to swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac.” (Genesis 24) We know that Abraham's concern for the ethnicity of Isaac's future wife was devoid of any religious component because he had fled his old clan to escape their idolatrous ways.“Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” has become a cliché, but opposition to marriage equality remains rooted in certain religious beliefs.The same-sex marriage bans of four states will be considered next week by the Supreme Court in .Similar resorts to religion fueled legal opposition to interracial marriage – in some cases until quite recently.In the 19th and early-20th centuries, state courts in Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania cited religious reasons for preventing different people of different races from marrying each other.There are arguments based on tradition: In 1967, Virginia officials told the Supreme Court that “The Virginia [bans on interracial marriage] reflect a policy which has obtained in this Commonwealth for over two centuries in which still obtains in seventeen states.” Now, in 2015, Michigan tells the Supreme Court that it “has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman since before statehood.” Kentucky says that same-sex marriage “is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history.”And there are arguments based on dubious social science and vague premonitions.