concurring in result.
The lead opinion sets forth a scholarly, thorough analysis that culminates in the conclusion the trial court correctly dis*36missed Appellants' complaint. I am constrained by binding precedent to concur in the result.
As the lead opinion amply reflects, the question before us is one of legality, not morality. Our conclusions on this question are thus not informed by our own personal views and opinions regarding the moral and societal issues implicated in the question before us, but instead-as is always the case-by our respective understandings of the law and legal precedent having a bearing on the matter at hand. In the final analysis, our votes on the question of whether the DOMA provision in question violates the Indiana Constitution turn upon only two criteria: the language of the constitution and the cases construing it. As one jurist considering this issue phrased it, "hlowever much history, sociology, religious beliefs, personal experience or other considerations may inform our individual or collective deliberations, we must decide this case ... on the basis of our understanding of the law, and the law alone." Baker v. Vermont, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.2d 864, 912 (Vt.1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
To be sure, the moral and societal questions presented here have far-reaching implications. Moreover, we are not writing on a blank slate. A number of our sister states either already have considered or are currently considering this question. Many have rendered opinions. Were all state constitutions the same, such cases might be of considerable persuasive value. All state constitutions are not the same, however. This case is unique, because it is the first and only one involving rights arising under the Indiana Constitution.
The moral aspects of this question are the same everywhere, regardless of the language of the particular state constitution in question. Amici is not far from the mark in observing that what is ultimately at stake in this lawsuit is "the nature and purpose of human distinctions and relations [.]" Brief of Amici Curiae of the Hon. Sen. Kent Adams, et al. at 19. The lead opinion and the parties to this appeal have done a thorough job of delineating the material benefits that, merely by virtue of attaining that status, devolve upon those who are legally married. Those benefits are both numerous and consequential. To deprive someone of the opportunity to attain legal marital status is no trifling matter, in that the prohibition has significant, real-life consequences. Viewed thus, there can be no doubt that the legislation in question implicates matters beyond debates about morality and historical societal preferences-it operates to deprive some citizens of the privileges granted to others, based solely upon membership in a class created by the legislation.
The lead opinion correctly concludes that I.C. § 31-11-1-1 clears the low bar of constitutionality set by Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.1994) for challenges arising under the equal protection clause of the Indiana Constitution. Pursuant to the Collins analysis, disparate treatment between classes is permissible so long as the treatment is reasonably related to the inherent characteristic that distinguishes the unequally treated classes. In this case, that means the prohibition against same-sex marriage is justifiable because the purpose of the DOMA legislation is to encourage responsible procreation, and same-sex couples cannot procreate through sexual intercourse. I must admit that I am somewhat troubled by this reasoning. Pursuant to this rationale, the State presumably could also. prohibit sterile individuals or women past their child-bearing years from marrying. In fact, I would assume the State may place any restrictions on the right to marry that do not negatively impact the State's interest in encouraging *37fertile, opposite-sex couples to marry. Yet, .C. § 81-11-1-1's narrow focus is to prohibit marriage among only one subset of consenting adults that is incapable of conceiving in the traditional manner-same-sex couples. Such laser-like aim suggests to me that the real motivation behind IC. § 31-11-1-1 might be discriminatory.
It is at this point in the analysis that one might delve into the social and moral aspects of the question. Our supreme court has held, however, that we should not "inquire into the legislative motives prompting such classifications." Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d at 80. Rather, The Collins formulation of the test of constitutionality under the Indiana's equal privileges clause is as follows:
First, the disparate treatment accorded by the legislation must be reasonably related to inherent characteristics which distinguish the unequally treated classes. Second, the preferential treatment must be uniformly applicable and equally available to all persons similarly situated. Finally, in determining whether a statute complies with or violates Section 23, courts must exercise substantial deference to legislative discretion.
Id. Justice Sullivan observed in Humphreys v. Clinic for Women, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 247 (Ind.2003), that, reduced to its simplest terms, Collins requires that the class must be defined by a characteristic that is not arbitrary or impermissible and that the difference in legislative treatment must be reasonably related to the difference between the classes created in the legislation. Is I.C. § 31-11-1-1 reasonably related to the legislative objectives identified herein? Setting aside any questions about the moral and societal issues implicated in this case, I must conclude that it does.
My vote to concur in the result is premised in large part upon a recognition of the daunting burden that faced the Plaintiffs in their effort to have the DOMA legislation in question declared unconstitutional. The lead opinion capably sets out the nature of that task. I note especially that, unlike review conducted under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, our serutiny of the challenged legislation is not heightened under Indiana's version of that provision. The opposite is true, in fact. Collins v. Day, cited liberally in the lead opinion, guides our deliberations in this case.20 I need not rehash that analysis. It suffices to say that the question we must decide, viewed through the Collins prism, is different than the one the Plaintiffs seek to place before us. The question Plaintiffs wish us to ponder is whether civil marriage ought to be an option available to same-sex couples in Indiana. Collins simply will not permit us to tackle that issue. Rather, we are limited under the Collins approach to considering whether there is a rational relationship between, on one hand, encouraging the goal of responsible procreation and, on the other, legislation that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. Because same-sex couples cannot procreate as a result of physical union, they are not implicated in the question of whether a marriage between biological parents is good for the children, and consequently good for society. Thus, the ultimate question, as initially presented by the Plaintiffs, is a distant cousin of what that question *38becomes after it has been distilled by Collins v. Day, viz., "may the State prohibit same-sex marriage" becomes, "will same-sex marriage promote, among other things, responsible procreation". Clearly, it would not.21
As a result, the question posed by the appellants must be resolved in a different arena, le., by the General Assembly and the people of this State. Unconstrained by the low bar set by the equal protection clause of the Indiana Constitution, they must identify and consider the societal implications and moral imperatives involved and determine whether the prohibition is Justifiable on those grounds. Focusing only upon the narrow legal question before us, I must agree with my colleagues that the DOMA provision at issue does not violate the equal protection clause of the Indiana Constitution.
. Although written only ten years ago, Collins was decided before this issue and its ramifications came to the fore nationally. In any event, we leave it to our supreme court to decide whether the significant evolution of the law in that specific area warrants revisiting the issue.
. I stress here that "responsible procreation," as it is used in this narrowly focused constitutional analysis, refers only to the capability to reproduce biologically as a result of sexual intercourse between the parties in question. More specifically, it does not refer to the ability to parent a child. This court has observed more than once that persons involved in same-sex relationships can be nurturing and effective parents, and in recognition of that fact it may be in the best interest of a child to permit such individuals or couples to fill that role in the child's life. See In re Adoption of K.S.P., 804 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) and In re Adoption of M.M.G.C., 785 N.E.2d 267 (Ind.Ct.App.2003).