Does the greater need for services by female victims of domestic violence provide a compelling state interest in a gender classification?

The greater need for services by female victims of domestic violence does not provide a compelling state interest in a gender classification. As Connerly makes clear, equal protection is not concerned with numbers. In applying the strict scrutiny test, it must be remembered that the rights created by the equal protection clause are not group rights; they are personal rights guaranteed to the individual. ( Connerly, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 35, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 5.) Arguing that a group of people (here male victims of domestic violence) is too small in number to be afforded equal protection is simply arguing that the right to equal protection should hinge on administrative convenience. ( Molar v. Gates (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 1, 18, 159 Cal.Rptr. 239.) Administrative convenience is an inadequate state interest under a strict scrutiny analysis. ( Id. at p. 17, 159 Cal.Rptr. 239.) Plaintiffs and defendants agree domestic violence is a serious problem for both women and men, and programs funded under Health and Safety Code section 124250 and

[167 Cal.App.4th 676]