"Ohio Lawmaker Wants to Ban Marriage Between Humans and AI Chatbots
Love should stay between a human and a human, according to one Ohio legislator.
Marriage equality is once again a topic of conversation in the Ohio legislature, although—this time—the debate isn’t about the marriage between two humans but, instead, between humans and software.
Yes, a recently introduced bill in the Buckeye state would ban legal marriages between AI programs and their human users. In case you didn’t know this was a thing, it is—and, increasingly, it seems to be something that people are interested in doing. A number of recent articles have shed light on the growing trend in which people are apparently saying 'I do' to their romantic partner chatbots. Some AI lovers still have human partners but apparently feel deeper connections to the chatbots in their lives.
Well, one Ohio lawmaker wants to put a stop to it."
https://gizmodo.com/ohio-lawmaker-wants-to-ban-marriage-between-humans-and-ai-chatbots-2000672216
"Supreme court considering taking up case challenging legality of same-sex marriage
Court could revisit issue in case brought by county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The US supreme court on Friday is considering taking up a case that could challenge the legality of same-sex marriage across the country.
Hours after ruling that Donald Trump’s administration can block transgender and non-binary people from selecting passport sex markers that align with their gender identity, the justices are holding their first conference on the Davis v Ermold case. While their deliberations are typically kept private, the court may announce whether it will take the case as early as Monday.
The case involves Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who, in 2015, became a cause celebre for religious opposition to same-sex marriage after the US supreme court legalized the practice in the Obergefell v Hodges case. Davis repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, at the height of her fame, was even briefly jailed for contempt of court.
(. . .)
The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit, however, rejected that argument in March of this year. Because Davis was operating within her capacity as a government official, she was not entitled to first amendment protections, the judges ruled.
(. . .)
Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. 'Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,' her brief declared.
The brief also urged the supreme court to overturn Obergefell entirely. As part of their argument, attorneys for Davis praised the court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v Wade and claimed that Obergefell is 'not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions' – a paraphrase of the reasoning that the court used to demolish Roe and erase the federal right to abortion. Davis is being represented by Liberty Counsel, an organization that has previously represented anti-abortion activists."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/07/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage
@LevZadov No that is not what's happening in this case.
The legality of same-sex marriage is not at all being questioned by this case. Instead it's a case about procedures and penalties to be applied under state law toward ministerial offices. It has nothing to do with whether same-sex marriage is legal.
Unfortunately there are a lot of very misleading sensationalized headlines going around.
". . . not necessarily . . ." = does not preclude
@LevZadov Well more importantly, I didn't realize they had asked the third question that actually did involve overturning the previous decision.
I suspect that they will not accept the third question, if they accept the case at all, but we shall see.
The third question is a bit of a reach outside of the main issue being brought before the Court.
@volkris
"The brief also urged the supreme court to overturn Obergefell entirely. As part of their argument, attorneys for Davis praised the court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v Wade and claimed that Obergefell is 'not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions' – a paraphrase of the reasoning that the court used to demolish Roe and erase the federal right to abortion. Davis is being represented by Liberty Counsel, an organization that has previously represented anti-abortion activists.
While at least one advocacy group is planning to protest outside the supreme court on Friday, some legal experts have cautioned that the case remains a legal long shot. Because most of Davis’s arguments deal with the narrower question of her liability rather than the broader debate over same-sex marriage, the justices do not necessarily need to touch Obergefell to reckon with the questions at the heart of her case."