This case involves the constitutionality of the state statute that gives parents a cause of action for the seduction of their unmarried daughter. We hold that OCGA § 51-1-16 is a gender-based classification that violates the equal protection clause of the Georgia Constitution because only men may be civilly liable for seduction under the statute.
Nancy Franklin sued her daughter’s former high school teacher, Andrew Hill, seeking damages for Hill’s alleged seduction of the daughter under OCGA § 51-1-16.1 In an earlier appeal, the Georgia *303Court of Appeals held that Franklin could not pursue a cause of action on behalf of her daughter, but remanded the case for trial on Franklin’s individual claim. Franklin v. Hill, 203 Ga. App. 724 (417 SE2d 721) (1992). Hill moved for summary judgment, challenging the constitutionality of the statute on equal protection grounds. The trial court declared the statute violated the equal protection clauses of the United States and Georgia constitutions and granted summary judgment. We affirm.
1. The protection of the equal protection clause in the State Constitution is similar to the protection provided in the Federal Constitution.2 Ambles v. State, 259 Ga. 406, 407 (383 SE2d 555) (1989). To withstand constitutional challenge, a gender-based classification “ ‘must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.’ ” Lamar v. State, 243 Ga. 401 (254 SE2d 353) (1979) (quoting Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268 (99 SC 1102, 59 LE2d 306) (1979)). Applying this standard, this court has held unconstitutional several state laws that created a gender classification in violation of the federal equal protection clause.3 We have relied on the state’s equal protection guarantee to invalidate a state statute that treated children differently based on the sex of their deceased parents. See Tolbert v. Murrell, 253 Ga. 566, 571 (322 SE2d 487) (1984) (finding wrongful death act violated equal protection by denying to children of deceased fathers rights granted to children of deceased mothers).
2. Hill argues that the seduction statute establishes a gender classification in three ways. First, only unmarried daughters, not sons, are protected from seduction; second, mothers are permitted to bring a seduction action only if the father is unable or unwilling to sue; and third, only men are liable for seduction. Because Hill limits his challenge to the third classification where his rights as a male are implicated, we do not address the constitutionality of the first two classifications.
*304In interpreting statutes, courts must look for the legislature’s intent, “keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” OCGA § 1-3-1 (a). All words, except words of art, shall be given their ordinary significance. City of Roswell v. City of Atlanta, 261 Ga. 657 (410 SE2d 28) (1991). “[W]here a constitutional provision or statute is plain and susceptible of but one natural and reasonable construction, the court has no authority to place a different construction upon it, but must construe it according to its terms.” Rayle EMC Corp. v. Cook, 195 Ga. 734, 735 (25 SE2d 574) (1943).
Seduction is defined as the “[a]ct of man enticing woman to have unlawful intercourse with him by means of persuasion, solicitation, promises, bribes, or other means without employment of force.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), p. 1218. This court has defined “seduction” as a term substantially similar to “debauchery.” Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 201 (157 SE 450) (1930). “ ‘Seduction, as a civil injury, may generally be defined as the act of a man in inducing a virtuous woman to commit unlawful sexual intercourse with him.’ ” Id. at 201, 203 (quoting Dwire v. Stearns, 44 N.D. 190, 199 (172 NW 69)). Therefore, by definition the statute makes a gender classification in that only men may be liable for the seduction of unwed daughters. Cf. Van Dyck v. Van Dyck, 262 Ga. 720, 721 (425 SE2d 853) (1993) (holding that the plain language “with a person of the opposite sex” does not apply to a homosexual relationship).
3. A gender-based classification violates equal protection only if it fails to serve important government interests that are substantially related to those interests. The mother argues that the seduction statute advances the important state interests of “protecting] females from the emotional and physical consequences of non-marital sexual intercourse,” including unwanted pregnancies and the physical and emotional scars of seduction.
Although preventing unwanted pregnancies, particularly of minors, is a legitimate government interest, the seduction statute is not substantially related to that goal. First, the statute has no age limitation, such as restricting the claim to parents of minor children. Second, the statute does not give the cause of action to the girl or woman who has the unwanted pregnancy and endured the “scars,” but instead gives the right only to the parent. Third, the statute does not restrict the claim to parents whose daughters become pregnant, but extends the claim to seduction “whether followed by pregnancy or not.” Finally, unlike the former criminal seduction statute, Ga. Code Ann. § 26-2005 (Harrison 1977) (enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1299), which was aimed at preventing public injury by deterring behavior that offends the public morals, the civil seduction statute is aimed at compensating a father or mother for personal injuries suffered by the *305daughter’s seduction.4
Rather than seeking to prevent the pregnancy of unwed daughters, the statute was passed to hold men civilly liable for corrupting the morals and compromising the chastity of unmarried women. Passed in 1863 at a time when women and children were the legal property of their husbands or fathers, the statute vindicates the outraged feelings of the father whose daughter’s virtue has been ruined. See Mosley, 172 Ga. at 199. As Justice Lumpkin explained:
Never, so help me God, while I have the honor to occupy a seat upon this bench, will I consent to control the Jury, in the amount of compensation which they may see fit to render a father for the dishonor and disgrace thus cast upon his family; for this atrocious invasion of his household peace. There is nothing like it, since the entrance of Sin and Death into this lower world.
Kendrick v. McCrary, 11 Ga. 603, 606 (1852) (quoted with approval in Mosley, 172 Ga. at 200). Based on the language, history, and judicial interpretation of the seduction statute, we conclude it does not bear a substantial relationship to any important government objective.
We hold that the statute, which by definition applies only to men, violates the equal protection of laws and must be struck down as unconstitutional. We decline to amend it to extend liability to women. See Waller v. State Constr. Indus. Licensing Bd., 250 Ga. 529, 531 (299 SE2d 554) (1983).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Carley, J., who concurs in the judgment only.The challenged statute provides:
The seduction of a daughter, unmarried and living with her parent, whether followed by pregnancy or not, shall give a right of action to the father or to the mother if the father is dead, or absent permanently, or refuses to bring an action. No loss of services need be alleged or proved. The seduction is the gist of the action, and in well-defined cases exemplary damages shall be granted.
*303OCGA § 51-1-16.
The equal protection clause in the Georgia Constitution provides: “Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II.
See Stepperson, Inc. v. Long, 256 Ga. 838, 839-840 (353 SE2d 461) (1987) (holding unconstitutional statute that gave a right of action to “a father or, if the father is dead, a mother” against persons furnishing alcoholic beverages to an underage child); Ins. Co. of N. America v. Russell, 246 Ga. 269, 271 (271 SE2d 178) (1980) (declaring unconstitutional a workers’ compensation law that gave a conclusive presumption of dependency to widows, but not widowers); Stitt v. Stitt, 243 Ga. 301 (253 SE2d 764) (1979) (holding alimony statutes unconstitutional because they failed to allow alimony awards to husbands); Sims v. Sims, 243 Ga. 275, 276 (253 SE2d 762) (1979) (invalidating “live-in lover” bill that provided for modification of alimony of the wife, but not the husband).
Even if the statute were related to the deterrence of unwanted pregnancies, it is both underinclusive and overinclusive. For example, it does not cover the seduction of married women or any woman living in a household away from her parents, but does include single, divorced, and widowed women who are past child-bearing age.