rather on the respective posture of the parties, i.e., that Wife was the “petitioner” and had the burden of establishing the need for an Order of Protection. As defined by section 20-4-20, a “ ‘[petitioner’ means the person alleging abuse in a petition for an order of protection.” S.C.Code Ann. § 20-4-20(d) (1985) (emphasis added). A review of the quoted text as well the rest of the definitional section of the Act, reveals that the statute clearly utilizes the word “person,” a non-gender specific term, to define the parties to an action for an Order of Protection. S.C.Code Ann. § 20-4-20(b), (d), & (e) (1985). Thus, there is no gender-based classification that would implicate a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See State v. Doe, 46 Conn.Supp. 598, 765 A.2d 518, 523-27 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, to the extent Husband attacks
holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding that the admission of his juvenile conviction did not violate equal protection holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection holding missouri transfer rule did not violate equal protection holding statutory classification of victim and a defendant involved in issuance of a protective order did not violate defendants equal protection rights