While the above headline might make you wonder if you somehow slipped into hibernation mode last night and woke up on April 1, an Ohio legislator has, in fact, introduced a bill that prohibits human-AI unions. Having Siri give you directions or watching one of the agility robot dogs dance is all fine and well, but none of us are looking at a Roomba and asking, “So, wanna get hitched?” Or, if you’re fluent in binary, “01110111 01101001 01101100 …?”
If you are, no judgment here. Keep on living your best life. But as you’re likely part of a very, very small minority, the rest of us can scratch our heads a bit at a house bill proposed on September 25, 2025, by Ohio state lawmaker Thaddeus J. Claggett (R-Licking County). House Bill 469 (H.B. 469) proposes, along with other restrictions, to ban artificial intelligence (AI) systems from becoming a human’s spouse. Or another AI system’s spouse, for that matter.
As wonky as the provision sounds, its very ridiculousness may cloud the other issues addressed in H.B. 469.
Shall We Play a Game?
Robots and AI that can pass for humans have long been a staple of science fiction stories. While technology hasn’t quite brought us to the level of the replicants seen in Blade Runner, advances continue to slowly blur the line between what’s real and what’s created in a lab. What AI’s role in our society will be isn’t fully defined yet, but the learning potential has some attempting to head off problems they consider to be looming on the horizon.
H.B. 469 doesn’t begin with a ban on human/AI nuptials — that shows up in the second section. Claggett’s bill opens with the intent to codify that AI is a nonsentient entity that can never achieve legal personhood. It goes on to state that AI can never be considered to have achieved self-awareness or consciousness. If H.B. 469 passes, under no circumstances can there be AI personhood in Ohio.
The proposed bill continues to list things that AI cannot be or do. These include holding positions in a corporation, owning a business, or being granted power of attorney. Perhaps of greatest interest to the myriad of AI firms doing business in Ohio, the bill asserts that AI can never be assigned liability. Any failings, misdeeds, or direct harm caused by an AI system would see the responsibility placed with its creators. Corporate exemptions for liability under Ohio law would not be applicable in these situations.
None of these provisions would appear to modify existing law.
Federal Legislation
Claggett is not the only Republican lawmaker introducing bills that attempt to limit the damage nonsentient entities can do. In an effort that may have a greater likelihood of success, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) is seeking support for a bill that would require AI chatbots and companions to clearly identify themselves as non-human. His impetus stems from children harming themselves after interactions with AI systems. There is also some concern that platforms that offer “romantic” chat features may lead to sexually explicit content being offered to children.
Hawley is seeking bipartisan and bicameral support for his Guidelines for User Verification and Responsible Dialogue (GUARD) Act. Early drafts indicate it’s intended to address the use of chatbots by children. Companies would be required to make it clear when someone is interacting with a nonsentient entity, and would face penalties for creating AI chatbots and companions that present minors with inappropriate sexual content. This would possibly necessitate the creation of new laws. However, there is some concern about how the bill would be able to narrowly address sexually explicit content and legitimate informational searches. Would proposed legislation be able to distinguish between sexually explicit content and legitimate questions about health asked by a 17-year-old to generative AI?
Terminators Beware
While there may come a day when there is real debate over the sentience of AI, that day isn’t here yet. For now, Claggett’s bill may have already gone as far as it can. No word on whether bakeries would object to baking a three-tiered cake for a human/AI wedding reception.
Related Resources
- Why Judges Are Getting Creative With AI-Abusing Attorneys (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Call for a Constitutional Amendment (FindLaw’s Marriage Law)
- AI Marketing for Law Firms: Precautions and Practical Uses (FindLaw’s Lawyer Marketing Insights)
