Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tying the knot with a robot: legal and philosophical foundations for human–artificial intelligence matrimony

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technological progress may eventually produce sophisticated robots with human-like traits that result in humans forming meaningful relationships with them. Such relationships would likely lead to a demand for human–artificial intelligence (AI) matrimony. U.S. Supreme Court decisions that expanded the definition of marriage to include interracial and same-sex couples, as well as those that have not extended marriage to polygamous relationships, provide guidance regarding the criteria that human–AI would have to meet to successfully assert a right to marry. Ultimately, robots will have to possess certain characteristics of personhood to marry, including the capacity to contract and to engage in an intimate relationship. Alternatively, if AIs can simulate these abilities sufficiently, we may believe that they have these capacities. Even if AIs genuinely possess the capabilities necessary to enter into a marriage, it is social acceptance of intelligent non-humans as life partners that will likely influence legal development is this realm rather than personhood criteria. However, AIs are likely to face bias due to their “artificial” rather than biological nature. 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The United Kingdom and New Zealand do recognize some polygamous marriages that were performed in countries where the practice is illegal provided that the spouses were not domiciled in the country at the time of union.

  2. The last part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The first part is known as the Due Process Clause and the second part is known as the Equal Protection Clause.

References

  • Armstrong S, Sotala K, ÓhÉigeartaigh SS (2014) The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions—and what they mean for the future. J Exp Theoret Artif Intell 26(3):317–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backonja U, Hall AK, Painter I, Kneale L, Lazar A, Cakmak M, Thompson HJ, Demiris G (2018) Comfort and attitudes towards robots among young, middle-aged, and older adults: a cross-sectional study. J Nurs Scholarsh 50(6):623–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)

  • R v. Brown (1993) UKHL 19

  • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483

  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c 11

  • Casillas CJ, Enns PK, Wohlfarth C (2011) How public opinion constrains the US Supreme Court. Am J Polit Sci 55(1):74–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D (2014) How do you explain consciousness? Ted Talk. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness?language=en. Accessed 17 Feb 2020

  • Charity N (2018) Japanese man married hologram he admired for ten years in Tokyo ceremony. Evening Standard. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/japanese-man-marries-the-hologram-he-admired-for-10-years-in-tokyo-ceremony-a3991401.html. Accessed 24 Feb 2020

  • Chopra S (2010) Rights for autonomous artificial agents? Commun ACM 53(8):38–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civil Marriage Act, S.C. (2005) c. 33

  • Coontz S (2005) Marriage, a history: from obedience to intimacy or how love conquered marriage. Viking, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. (1985) c. C-46

  • Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890)

  • Ellinghaus K (2003) Absorbing the ‘Aboriginal problem’: controlling interracial marriage in Australia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aborig Hist 27:183–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner v. Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

  • Goldfeder M, Razin Y (2015) Robotic marriage and the law. J Law Soc Deviance 10:137–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Halwani R (2010) Philosophy of love, sex, and marriage: an introduction. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K (2017) Chinese engineer “marries” robot after failing to find a human wife. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2084389/chinese-engineer-marries-robot-after-failing-find-human-wife. Accessed 24 Feb 2020

  • Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) [L.R.] 1 P. & D. 130

  • Jonze S, Ellison M, Landay V, Jonze S (2013) Her [Motion picture]. Warner Bros, United States

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy D (2008) Love and sex with Robots Harper, London

  • Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

  • Macklin R (1984) Personhood and the abortion debate. In: Garfield J, Hennessey P (eds) Abortion: moral and legal perspectives. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, pp 87–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Madrid C (2012) Seattle woman marries corporation in intimate downtown ceremony. The Stranger. http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/17/seattle-woman-marries-corporation-in-intimate-downtown-ceremony. Accessed 17 Feb 2020

  • Marchant G (2015) A.I. thee wed: Humans should be able to marry robots. Future Tense. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/08/humans_should_be_able_to_marry_robots.html. Accessed 17 Feb 2020

  • Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act (2013) c. 30

  • Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Stanley, No. 152736/15, 2015 W.L. 4612340 at 15 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 29, 2015.)

  • Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)

  • Meyer DS, Boutcher SA (2007) Signals and spillover: Brown v. Board of Education and other social movements. Perspect Polit 5(1):81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore v, City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)

  • Potter v. Murray City, 760 F.2d 1064 (10th Cir., 1985)

  • Nyholm S, Frank EL (2017) From sex robots to love robots: is mutual love with a robot possible? In: Danaher J, McArthur N (eds) Robot sex. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 219–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2020

  • Ray C, Mondada F, Siegwart R (2008) What do people expect from robots? IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3816–3821

  • Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada (2011) BCSC 1588

  • Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

  • Richard J (2010) Autonomy, imperfect consent, and polygamist sex rights claims. Calif Law Rev 98(1):197–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson Z (2016) Constitutional personhood. George Washington Law Rev 85:605–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

  • Rower A (2004) The legality of polygamy: using the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Fam Law Q 38(3):711–731

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer P (1975) Animal liberation. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Solum LB (1992) Legal personhood for artificial intelligences. N Carolina Law Rev 70:1231–1287

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullins J (2012) Robots, love, and sex: the ethics of building a love-machine. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(4):398–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act (2017) (NZ)

  • Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (1970, am. 1971 and 1973). https://www.uniformlaws.org/viewdocument/final-act-no-comments-44?CommunityKey=c5a9ecec-095f-4e07-a106-2e6df459d0af&tab=librarydocuments. Accessed 17 Feb 2020

  • United Nations General Assembly (1966) International covenant on civil and political rights, United Nations, Treaty Series 999:171

  • Warren MA (1973) On the moral and legal status of abortion. Monist 57:43–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 703 (1997)

  • Whitby B (2012) Do you want a robot lover? The ethics of caring technologies. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 233–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Wray BJ, Reimer K, Cameron C (2015) The most comprehensive judicial record ever-produced: the polygamy reference. Emory Law J 64(6):1877–1902

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshino K (2015) A new birth of freedom? Obergefell v. Hodges. Harvard Law Rev 129:147–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Złotowski J, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2017) Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. Int J Hum Comput Stud 100:48–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies, Arizona State University, 975 S. Myrtle Avenue, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Greg Yanke

Authors
  1. Greg Yanke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg Yanke.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yanke, G. Tying the knot with a robot: legal and philosophical foundations for human–artificial intelligence matrimony. AI & Soc 36, 417–427 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00973-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00973-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation