e-LOPE: Ohio Republican introduces bill that would ban humans from marrying AI

Ohio state Representative Thad Claggett has introduced legislation that would ban humans from marrying artificial intelligence systems and strip AI of any legal personhood status. The Republican lawmaker’s House Bill 469, filed September 25, aims to establish clear legal boundaries as AI technology advances and sparks nationwide debates about the relationship between humans and machines.

What you should know: The proposed law would explicitly classify AI systems as nonsentient and block them from gaining human-like legal rights.

• House Bill 469 would prohibit AI systems from being recognized as spouses, owning real estate, controlling intellectual property, or holding financial accounts.
• The legislation would also bar AI from serving in management or staff roles within companies.
• Claggett chairs Ohio’s House Technology and Innovation Committee and represents Licking County.

Why this matters: The bill reflects growing concerns about AI’s expanding role in society and potential legal complications as the technology becomes more sophisticated.

• “Even some of the brightest minds in the tech field are wondering just how sentient AI can become,” Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek.
• The proposal comes as federal lawmakers recently attempted to include a 10-year ban on state-level AI regulation in national budget legislation, highlighting ongoing tensions over regulatory authority.

What they’re saying: Claggett warns that AI could pose unprecedented risks to human autonomy and control.

• “AI is a blessing and a curse,” Claggett said in a statement. “Some will say it’s even more dangerous than nuclear weapons because of how widespread it will be, and those who control it will control the human population.”
• He added: “What we don’t want is for someone to try to make an argument in the future that this machine is their spouse and can therefore take over financial categories, health care, power of attorney, all those types of things that are reserved for competent humans.”

The counterargument: Experts suggest the legislation may be addressing a largely symbolic rather than practical concern.

• “This bill feels more symbolic than practical,” Natassia Miller, an AASECT certified sexologist for DatingNews.com, told Newsweek. “While a few people hold ceremonies with AI companions, we are not on the verge of mass AI marriages.”
• Miller argues the focus should be on understanding why “human connection feels so fraught and how to rebuild trust, vulnerability, and real-world touch.”

Looking ahead: Industry experts anticipate complex legal challenges as AI technology continues advancing.

• Kevin Thompson, CEO of 9i Capital Group, warned of potential property rights complications: “Imagine someone dies and an AI rewrites a legal document in its own favor—that’s a real concern.”
• The broader debate over federal versus state-level AI regulation continues, with critics arguing that federal restrictions would prevent states from protecting residents against AI-related risks.