In order to establish a meritorious claim under the equal protection provisions of California state and federal Constitutions appellant must first show that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner. (People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 200, 223 [260 Cal. Rptr. 583, 776 P.2d 285].) Equal protection applies to ensure that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment; equal protection does not require identical treatment. (People v. Romo (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 189, 196 [121 Cal. Rptr. 111, 534 P.2d 1015].) Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard against which to measure claims of disparate treatment in civil commitment. (Conservatorship of Hofferber (1980) 28 Cal. 3d 161, 171, fn. 8 [167 Cal. Rptr. 854, 616 P.2d 836]; Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1138, 1153, fn. 20 [81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, 969 P.2d 584]; People v. Buffington (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 1149, 1156 [88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 696].) To successfully challenge the facial validity of a statute one must demonstrate the inevitable conflict of the statutory provisions with the appropriate constitutional mandate; to successfully challenge a facially valid statute an individual must show that as applied to him the provision offends a protected right. (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 1069, 1084 [40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, 892 P.2d 1145].)