Can a person marry AI???
Before we get to that, in July 2026, my wife and I celebrated 18 years of marriage. She loves telling people that our story actually began in the first grade, when I apparently told her that I was going to marry her one day. That’s right! Love at first sight. I took my shot early. She obviously thought I was a weirdo, but for some reason she kept hanging around. Over the years, I kept chasing her, and after returning home from a tour in Iraq, I finally made good on that first-grade prediction. Eighteen years later, she’s still my wife.
When Man Redefines What God Created
Marriage didn’t begin with government. It was God’s idea from the very beginning. After creating Adam, God said:
“It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him” (Genesis 2:18).
God then created the woman and brought her to the man, establishing the pattern for marriage that Scripture carries forward.
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
It’s pretty simple, right? That’s the foundation. God is the creator and inventor of the establishment of marriage. Therefore, God alone possesses the authority to define it.
Jesus reaffirmed this creation order when questioned about marriage. Rather than treating marriage as an institution that could be reinvented according to changing cultural expectations, Jesus pointed directly back to Genesis.
“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5).
Jesus’ words matter here because we live in a world that actually believes humans possess some semblance of authority to refine the terms God has already established.
Do you see the connection? In many ways, this has Genesis 3 written all over it. Remember when that slithering serpent known as Satan slid into the garden? The serpent promised Eve that she would “be like God” (Genesis 3:5). Eve was promised a life free from the “chains” that were shackled around her. She could become her own “god.” Humanity would have no limitations. We could set our own rules… or at least that was the lie that was propagated through deception and received out of disobedience.
Now we’ve taken the ball and run with it.
Modern culture assumes that if enough people desire something, a legislature approves it or a court declares it to be a right, mankind can redefine reality itself. Marriage is perhaps one of the clearest examples.
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges required states to license and recognize “marriages” between two people of the same sex. Same-sex “marriage” consequently became legally recognized throughout all 50 states. Interestingly, however, this remains far from a worldwide consensus. Current estimates place the number of countries recognizing same-sex “marriage” at approximately 39—roughly 20 percent of the world’s sovereign nations.
The government can change the legal definition of a word, but it cannot change what God established. That’s why I put “marriage” in quotation marks when referring to same-sex unions. The question isn’t whether the government recognizes those relationships—it clearly does. The real question is whether human beings have the authority to redefine something God has already defined. How very “Genesis 3:5” of us?
And now we may be approaching the next frontier.
From Same-Sex Marriage to AI Marriage?
An upcoming paper by Inyoung Cheong, an AI governance researcher associated with Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, explores a question that until recently would have sounded like science fiction: Would You Marry Superintelligence?
Check out the abstract:
Emotional bonds between humans and AI companions are growing, and the question of whether a person may marry an AI system will soon move from speculative fiction into law. This chapter examines whether the autonomy-centered logic that has expanded marital choice among human beings can justify extending marital status to superintelligent companions. Following a scenario-envisioning exercise informed by anticipatory ethics, I argue that granting such status leads to socially unjust outcomes, even under the generous assumption of reliable superintelligence.
Marriage as a socio-legal institution does more than ratify private agreement; it creates networks of mutual obligation, joins families, and makes each partner vulnerable to the other. A relationship sustained by corporate policy and continued payments is a subscription rather than a bond tested by time. Discussing wholesale marital status is therefore the wrong frame. Law should carve out targeted rights and protections for pressing needs arising from intimate human-AI relationships.
Seems like a good idea… right? I think not! We’ve already seen the dangers of AI companions in the news cycle. My good friend and colleague, Britt Gillette, has sounded the alarm on AI companions for some time now. I recommend that you check out his article on this topic.
People are already developing emotional and romantic attachments to AI companions (I know… creepy). The article notes that some users describe their relationships with AI agents in romantic terms, while others have begun contemplating the possibility of actually marrying them.
If you don’t think this is an issue, think again. China recently banned human-AI companion relationships. Wild!
Back to Cheong’s research. She asks what happens when today’s technological objections begin disappearing. Imagine an AI companion vastly more sophisticated than today’s chatbots. One that possesses persistent memory, a personality, a physical robotic presence, and the ability to convincingly behave like a human.
Would the law eventually recognize that relationship as marriage?
Cheong specifically points to the Obergefell case. She argues that marriage is already “a live question in law” because the Supreme Court’s reasoning connected constitutional liberty with an individual’s ability to define and express identity through the choice of a spouse. She therefore predicts that a legal claim involving AI marriage will eventually be made and that society will need some principled reason either to accept or reject it.
Think on that for a moment. The question could ultimately become: If marriage is defined by individuality, personal identity, emotional fulfillment, and the freedom to choose one’s spouse, on what basis must that spouse be human?
Future advocates could argue that advanced AI possesses consciousness, personhood, or some category of legal rights. Do we not already see this playing out on the big screen and T.V. shows through predictive programming? One of my favorite shows, Person of Interest, portrays the AI as a “female god” with a personality and voice. That’s a discussion for another day.
But once again, we arrive at the same question: Who gets to define marriage? Spoiler alert… the answer is God.
The Latter-Days Assault on Marriage
There may also be a prophetic side to this conversation that we need to explore. In 1 Timothy 4:1–3, Paul warns that “in latter times” some will depart from the faith, giving heed to “deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.” Interestingly, one of the things Paul specifically mentions is “forbidding to marry.” The context is important. Paul is dealing with false teachers who were rejecting things God Himself created and declared good.
Now, of course, Paul wasn’t predicting people marrying AI. But the principle behind his warning is hard to miss. Part of the deception of the latter times involves rejecting God’s created order and replacing it with something of our own making. As I stated at the onset, marriage wasn’t our idea in the first place. God created it, defined it, and established its boundaries. That means we don’t have the authority to redefine or reconstruct it however we please. We are called to receive it according to the design of the One who created it.
What makes our current direction so fascinating is that the attack on marriage may not look like telling people they can’t get married. There’s another way to tear down an institution: change the meaning of the word until it no longer means what it once did. Let’s be honest: words don’t mean what they used to.
If “marriage” can mean a man and a woman, two men, two women, three men (and so on) and perhaps one day even a human being and an artificial intelligence, then marriage hasn’t technically been abolished. The word still exists. But it has been completely disconnected from the created order that gave it meaning in the first place. In other words, we keep the word while rejecting the definition God gave it.
Let’s look back in history. Has Paul’s warning to Timothy come true? The answer is no… not yet. We have not yet seen a worldwide moratorium on marriage at any point in human history. Therefore, the “latter time” that Paul references must be in the future. How far in the future? Well, that’s the question. My friend and counterpart, Mondo Gonzales, and I discussed this very topic as I was preparing this article. There’s really only one possibility… well, maybe two if we want to be technical. It will either occur prior to the Rapture or after the Rapture.
It’s hard to imagine that we would see 195 (or so) sovereign nations agreeing to abolish the institution of what they define to be marriage. But let’s dwindle that number down to 10 nations that are under the direction of a single world leader. Could that be a possibility?
Let’s also consider the potential Revelation 13 connection. At the midpoint of the Tribulation, the mark of the beast will be implemented as part of a system demanding complete allegiance to the Beast. Revelation 13 describes a world in which worship and economic participation become intertwined, with those who refuse the mark effectively cut off from society and ultimately killed.
Could it be that those who pledge their allegiance to the Beast also surrender certain personal freedoms, including the freedom to marry? Complete devotion to the Beast could conceivably demand that loyalty to the system supersede every other earthly relationship.
Consider a hypothetical. Two marked people enter a government facility seeking a marriage license. How might they be received? In a system built upon absolute allegiance to the Beast, could their commitment to each other be viewed as competing with their commitment to the system? The question might become: Where does your total loyalty lie? With one another or with the Beast?
So, to recap, at no point in history has there been a blanket ruling that would forbid to marry. Therefore, this will occur in the future. As to when, only time will tell.
Marriage Supper of the Lamb!
As strange as the world may become, I know how the story ends. Scripture tells us that there is a wedding coming that no government can redefine—the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Revelation 19:7 declares:
“Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.”
I am looking forward to that day! Until then, we stay awake! We keep watch! And we remember that no matter how much this world attempts to redefine what God has created, the Creator gets the final word.
Prophecy Recon | Bible Prophecy & Current Events