We used to think the expression “love is blind” only applied to humans. Spoiler: in the United States, the state of Ohio just said, “let’s avoid blurring the lines,” and is proposing a law to ban marriage between a person and an AI. Yes, yes — even if your chatbot tells you “I love you” with flawless punctuation, there won’t be any wedding rings in sight 💍🤖.
What exactly is the Ohio law about?
HB 469, introduced in late September 2025 by Representative Thad Claggett, asserts that AI systems are “non-sentient entities” and denies them any form of legal personality. Consequence: no marriage, no assets in their name, no seat on a corporate board, and no direct criminal liability. In short,
Why now? The story of an “I do” that won’t happen
Between the conversational companions that have crept into our lives and the (sometimes surreal) debates about the legal personality of AIs, some elected representatives want to cut through the clutter. The pro-HB 469 argument: to prevent anyone from one day pleading that a model is “his wife” for inheritance rights, a health proxy, or asset management. Translation: you keep your feelings, AI keeps its software status, and the courts breathe 😅.
But Ohio doesn’t act in a vacuum: express panorama of states
The United States is a regulatory puzzle. While Ohio brandishes “anti-AI marriage”, other states are moving forward on
| Status | Flagship measure | Concrete effect | Status (Oct. 2025) |
| Ohio | HB 469: AI = non-sentient entity; no marriage, no legal personality | Prevents any recognition of AI as a “person” (marriage, ownership, company management, etc.). | Tabled & in committee |
| California | Chatbot transparency: obligation to inform users that they are talking to an AI; reinforced security rules, particularly for minors | Explicit “you’re talking to an AI” messages, public reports on self-harm risk management by certain operators | Promulgated (2025) |
| Utah | Package of laws targeting mental health chatbots and generative AI disclosure requirements | Enhanced disclosure, definition of “generative” systems, penalties for non-compliance | In force (May 2025) |
| Nevada | Draft transversal AI regulatory framework (public & private use) | Ethical and consumer safeguards; adjustments to the public use of AI | Debates & amendments (2025) |
What does “marrying an AI” technically mean?
No AI has a body, nor consent as such (in the legal sense). A human-IA “marriage” would therefore be no more than a symbolic ceremony… unless the law opens the door to legal recognition. This is precisely what Ohio wants to lock in: to avoid side effects (inheritance, taxation, guardianship, etc.).
Arguments for and against (with a pinch of irony)
- Pros: Clarifies the law before wacky cases. Imagine a model who “inherits” a house and “hires” his own fine-tuner as notary… chaos 🏚️.
- Against: Preventive legislation considered symbolic by some; risk of slowing down innovation orincreasing compliance for non-problematic uses.
- In the middle: No personhood for AI, but clear rights & duties for human operators (insurance, traceability, liability).
What’s in it for you (and your algorithmic crush)?
If you live in Ohio (or if other states imitate), you’ll still be able to talk, flirt – and why not improvise a TikTok ceremony – with your favorite chatbot. But no marital status, no survivor’s pension, no “till cache invalidation do us part” 💔.
The real crux of the matter: can AI be a “person”?
U.S. law already recognizes certain “legal persons” (corporations, associations). But granting personality to autonomous software raises a number of issues: criminal liability, ownership, consent, representation… Ohio’s choice is to lock the door now, while other states prefer to regulate usage (transparency, safety of minors, mental health) rather than metaphysics.
And at federal level?
Congress has debatedpreventing states from legislating (to avoid a patchwork quilt), but recent dynamics show that the moratorium is being rolled back. As a result, states continue to
Our opinion (subjective, but assumed) 😊
Today, human-IA marriages are mostly about staging. The real question lies elsewhere:
FAQ express
Will other states ban “AI marriage”? Possible. Bills often respond to each other from state to state. But the overriding trend is still toregulate uses (labeling, safety, mental health) rather than the “metaphysics” of marriage.
What if a judge wanted to recognize an AI’s right? With texts like HB 469, the door is closed at state level, upstream.
Can we at least organize a symbolic ceremony? Of course. But no legal value (and your chatbot won’t want to open a joint account, I promise).
To remember
Ohio draws a red line: no marriage with AI and no legal personality. Other states are strengthening transparency and safety. The debate isn’t just romantic: it’s the governance of AI – and how we protect humans – that’s at stake.
