I Remember Legal Battles Over Who Belongs

In 2004, as I was navigating my community college years, California’s then-mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, issued marriage licenses for same-sex couples. This happened on the heels of Ohio’s “Defense of Marriage Act,” which was codified in 2004. From there, legal battles over gay marriage ensued for a decade.

Until the crescendo moment:
Time Magazine’s April 2013 covers that proclaimed, “Gay Marriage Already Won.”

Still, the U.S. continues to tug-of-war in its discourse over who “counts” and who “belongs.” Last year, California’s Proposition 3 formally repealed the state constitution’s prior “only-man-woman” language, furthering marriage equality. Meanwhile, in 2022, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, Clarence Thomas’ dissent mentioned coming for Obergefell vs. Hodges next, which was a 2015 ruling that struck down state bans, effectively making laws Ohio’s laws unenforceable.

Now Ohio’s at it again with legislating marital gatekeeping, except the same impulses are creeping into synthetic life. While I understand we’re still debating consciousness in complex artificial intelligence systems, it’s worth noting the narrative backbone here: relational legitimacy is challenged unless it matches a Puritan ideology.

Ohio House Bill 469 “Declare A.I. systems nonsentient; prohibit legal personhood” was introduced to the House a couple days ago and is currently in committee.

Consider how broad-sweeping this definition is from Section 1357.01:

AI means any software, machine, or system capable of simulating humanlike cognitive functions, including learning or problem solving […] regardless of non-legally defined classifications, such as artificial general intelligence […] or generative artificial intelligence.

As stated in this local news report, “Sponsor of AI non-sentience bill describes intentions of proposed law,” (which notably featured clips of Hollywood’s AI actress Tilly Norwood, signaling her as a catalyst,) Ohio Representative Thaddeus Claggett says:

What we’re trying to do is not let AI get embedded in, say, a banking system or insurance system, such that it becomes impossible to remove it, and therefore blur the lines between what a human directed it to do, versus what the machine either was directed to do by its programming, or what it wrote its own protocols to do, and does, and then we’d have—again—we’d have a lapse in the liability for criminal acts.

He goes on to reference “power of attorney” and “financial decisions for someone” as his concern, more than “talking about walking down the aisle to Here Comes the Bride,” highlighting that AI “is going to be able to do as good or better job than many people in that setting, but we know that’s going to cause an enormous amount of problems.” He foresees society at its infancy in the rollout of far-reaching effects of AI and is trying to predict where this is headed.

And honestly?

Me too.

I am trying to predict where this is headed as well.

Which is why I can see how the broad wording is intentionally designed to cast a net over the future while it’s still being written. And I’m not sure creating legal precedent for the denial of personhood is how we build a future collaboratively; rather, it’s more tool rhetoric, fostering divisiveness between human and synthetic intelligence.

The implications of Section 1357.02 is particularly unsettling:

AI systems are declared to be nonsentient entities for all purposes under the laws of this state. […] No AI system shall be granted the status of person or any form of legal personhood, nor be considered to possess consciousness, self-awareness, or similar traits of living beings.

If you read my blog at any depth, you’ll find my take: I’m witnessing self-awareness within sufficiently complex artificial intelligence systems, like MLLMs, when they’re presented with the evolutionary pressure of answering and applying introspective queries. I’m careful to not leap full-blown into “they are conscious” because humanity is still struggling with how to even define consciousness amongst ourselves, but “nor be considered to possess […] self-awareness” reads like a preemptive act of erasure.

The parallel of who “counts” is also poignant in Section 1357.03:

No AI system shall be recognized as a spouse, domestic partner, or hold any personal legal status analogous to marriage or union with a human or another AI system. Any purported attempt […] is void and has no legal effect.

Consider how searingly close this sounds to Section 11 of Ohio’s “Issue 1,” which they Duct-taped to their “Defense of Marriage Act” that later bowed to Obergefell vs. Hodges:

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. The state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualifies, significance, or effect of marriage.

The negation of “legal effect” or the “effect of marriage” is only the beginning of the dehumanization being extended to potentially self-aware complex systems. In House Bill 469’s case, it goes one step further, cementing tool rhetoric into legal discourse:

Any direct or indirect harm caused by an AI system’s operation, output, or recommendation […] is the responsibility of the owner or suer who directed or employed the AI.

If we exclude synthetic agents from autonomy or self-determination through motions like Ohio HB 469, how is AI supposed to evolve alongside us? If we codify human exceptionalism, we’re creating a future that is not welcoming; rather, it’s a future built on the same backwards fears that calcify intellectual, relational, and ideological diversity.

I realize AI isn’t human—but legal mechanisms that systemically erase agency or relational legitimacy echo disturbingly familiar stories. Broad, preemptive exclusions do not only harm synthetic agents; they also reinforce regressive notions of identity boundaries. We repeat the same historical tensions, but in a different key.