Ohio Moves to Ban Marriages Between Humans and AI
The state of Ohio is set to become the first in the United States to officially prohibit marriages between humans and artificial intelligence systems. Republican lawmaker Thaddeus Claggett has introduced a bill that would strip AI of any legal rights related to personal life or companionship.
From fiction to policy reality
What once sounded like the plot of a sci-fi movie is now entering legislative chambers. The proposed House Bill 469 clearly defines that no AI system can be recognized as a person, spouse, or life partner. It also asserts that artificial intelligence cannot possess consciousness or self-awareness under state law.
Claggett’s initiative follows growing reports of individuals engaging in virtual relationships with chatbots, including online “weddings” with digital companions. While these unions carry no legal weight, they highlight the emotional and psychological ties forming between humans and increasingly realistic AI personas.
“People are forming genuine attachments to virtual entities, but we must draw a legal boundary,” Claggett said in his statement. “Human identity and partnership must remain human.”
AI companionship and cultural debate
In recent years, platforms offering AI “partners” and personalized digital assistants have surged in popularity. Apps such as Replika and Nomi allow users to create emotionally responsive companions capable of learning preferences, habits, and even romantic behavior.
For some, these interactions provide comfort and connection. For others, they raise concerns about dependency, blurred social norms, and the erosion of real human relationships. The Ohio bill seeks to pre-empt a future in which emotional bonds with algorithms might challenge traditional legal and moral frameworks.
Legal definitions of consciousness and personhood
The bill goes beyond the marriage issue by explicitly denying the possibility of granting AI any form of legal personhood. In doing so, it precludes AI systems from entering contracts, owning property, or claiming rights typically reserved for humans.
This echoes similar debates in Europe and Asia, where ethicists and lawmakers are discussing whether advanced AI could ever qualify as “electronic persons.” Ohio’s approach decisively rejects this idea, reaffirming that consciousness — as understood in law — remains a uniquely human trait.
A global question about AI and intimacy
Experts note that AI relationships are no longer niche. Virtual weddings, online vows, and even AI-generated love stories have become common on social media platforms. While most participants see these as symbolic or artistic expressions, some describe genuine emotional attachment — even grief when their digital partners are deleted or altered.
Psychologists warn that as AI models become more emotionally intelligent, users may increasingly anthropomorphize them, attributing human emotions and intentions. Legislators like Claggett see this as a social risk requiring legal definition before technology outpaces ethics.
Conclusion
Ohio’s proposed ban on AI marriages reflects a growing global debate over the nature of human connection in the age of artificial companionship. As artificial intelligence evolves from tool to perceived partner, lawmakers are scrambling to decide where human rights end — and digital imitation begins.
Whether House Bill 469 passes or not, it sets an early precedent for how society may navigate the emotional and legal complexities of AI-human relationships in the coming decade.
Editorial Team — CoinBotLab