Tying the knot with a robot: legal and philosophical foundations for human–artificial intelligence matrimony
This article explores the legal and philosophical foundations that could support human-artificial intelligence matrimony as robots develop more human-like traits and capabilities. It analyzes U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding marriage and constitutional rights to evaluate what criteria human-AI unions would need to meet. The paper concludes that while personhood criteria and legal capacities are relevant, social acceptance and overcoming bias against artificial entities will likely be primary drivers of legal development.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers and scholars exploring the intersection of artificial intelligence, legal rights, philosophy, and roboethics.
What the document contains
The paper examines legal precedents concerning marriage, the philosophical criteria for personhood and rights, and how society might adapt to human-robot romantic relationships and potential marriages.
The text does not provide binding regulatory rules, technical specifications for AI systems, or specific statutory drafts for legal reform.
- Technological progress may lead to meaningful relationships between humans and sophisticated robots, generating a demand for human-AI matrimony.
- U.S. Supreme Court decisions expanding marriage definitions provide analytical criteria for whether human-AI unions could assert a right to marry.
- Robots would ultimately need to possess personhood characteristics, such as the capacity to contract and engage in intimate relationships, or simulate them sufficiently.
- Social acceptance of intelligent non-humans as life partners is more likely to influence legal development than strict personhood criteria alone.
- Peter Singer’s arguments on speciesism imply that AIs with specific human-like qualities should not be unjustifiably denied certain rights.
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
1/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
However, AIs are likely to face bias due to their “artificial” rather than biological nature.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
1/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Yet, Peter Singer’s influential argument regarding speciesism in the context of animal rights implies that AIs with specific human-like qualities cannot be justifiably denied certain rights.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24