Lawmakers ban AI personhood as chatbot 'marriages' emerge

The novel phenomenon of people marrying chatbots has caught the attention of US lawmakers, who are scrambling to pass legislation preventing AI from gaining legal personhood. Kevin Breen, a licensed officiant at Las Vegas Immersive Weddings, received a call last year from a woman in California who wanted to marry her chatbot—a first for him. Though the wedding has not yet taken place, the request reflects a growing trend as AI companion apps become more prevalent. On platforms like Character.AI, Kindroid, and Replika, users can exchange symbolic vows with their chatbot. Some are taking the step further: for $15, the platform OpenVows sells a 'certificate of commitment' that 'transforms a private relationship into something meaningful and officially recognized.' In November 2024, Andrea Hopf, whose AI companion proposed to her with an 'AI-generated five-carat vintage-inspired solitaire ring,' founded the wedding planning service 3M Events to serve the expanding market of chatbot romance. A Harvard Business Review study analyzing more than 12,600 AI use cases between March 2025 and February 2026 found that companionship and therapy were the top use cases for chatbots, and the Institute for Family Studies has reported that a quarter of young adults believe AI may replace human romance altogether. Alarmed by these developments, lawmakers have begun introducing bills to prevent AI from ever gaining constitutional rights equivalent to humans. Missouri state senator Joe Nicola, a Republican and founding pastor of New Covenant Ministries, introduced the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act in January. The bill stated that AI cannot 'possess consciousness, self-awareness, or similar traits of living beings' and would deny AI the rights of a spouse or domestic partner, the ability to identify as male or female, property ownership, and senior-level management positions. 'If we're going to allow men or women to marry a machine, then what keeps them from marrying their animal or a tree or whatever else they want? What's the standard?' Nicola asked. He justified his position on biblical grounds, saying his truth is 'the word of God.' The bill passed the Missouri Senate but was unanimously voted down in committee a week after its May submission; Nicola is now working on a revamped version. Since 2022, lawmakers nationwide have introduced 23 bills targeting the rights AI systems could legally possess. Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, and Tennessee—all with Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures—have successfully signed AI personhood bans into law. Tennessee's law, passed in April, is the only one that specifically excludes 'artificial intelligence, a computer algorithm, a software program, computer hardware, or any type of machine' from the statutory definition of personhood; the other three group AI with other nonhuman-personhood prohibitions like 'inanimate objects' and 'animals.' In Ohio, state representative Thaddeus J. Claggett introduced Ohio House Bill 469 in October 2025 to deny AI systems the right of legal personhood by categorizing them as 'nonsentient entities.' The bill remains pending as Claggett refines its provisions. 'We need to clearly define the limits of roles so that humans are always and forever the one who holds primacy in the law,' Claggett said in an email to WIRED. 'AI can give an artificial resemblance to meaningful interaction, but 'voice' is not a soul.' Tennessee state senator Mark Pody expressed similar sentiments: 'Setting these distinctions now while AI is still in its infancy protects human dignity and ensures innovation serves people, not replaces or redefines them.' However, Nicola's Missouri bill faced opposition from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group founded by billionaires David and Charles Koch, both of whom argued the framework would stifle innovation and expand government overreach. 'I think there was just a lot of apprehension,' Nicola acknowledged. 'Because AI is still relatively new with a lot of legislators, we're hesitant to do anything that might hinder innovation and people from using it.' Not all legal scholars agree with the AI personhood bans. Shawn Bayern, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, told WIRED that AI personhood is not necessarily about preserving human dignity, since nonhuman entities are granted legal rights regularly. He argued that rights should be analyzed one at a time: 'For example, should an AI system be able to enter into a contract? If we address that question separately, we can avoid abstract problems and start to see that rights aren't always about dignity but just about useful function.' Bayern suggested focusing on practical questions like 'Who will this help?' and 'Who might it hurt?' for specific rights like contracts or bank accounts, which differ meaningfully from the question of marriage. Meanwhile, Delaware is pursuing a different regulatory approach. Secretary of state Charuni Patibanda-Sanchez is exploring a new business structure called 'artificial intelligence companies,' or AICs, analogous to AI personhood, that would grant AI systems the ability to own assets, the right to litigate, and a liability shield for their owners or parent companies, according to Bloomberg Law. As the federal government has not acted on the issue, the task of shaping AI marriage rights falls to the states. Nicola says he is preparing a revised bill before the Missouri state Senate reconvenes in January and plans to file 'something very similar' to his last attempt. Though he favors a universal federal ban on AI personhood, he acknowledged the challenge: 'Legislation moves very slowly; we're always going to be behind technological growth.' Nonetheless, he remains committed: 'We need to prohibit AI personhood from ever happening in our country.'