Requiring lifetime sex offender registration of a defendant convicted of consensual oral copulation with a minor violates his right to equal protection of the laws, because a similar registration requirement is not imposed upon those convicted of unlawful intercourse with a minor. The court held that the two offenses are sufficiently similar to trigger some level of equal protection scrutiny, and that the registration distinction was not supported by a rational relationship to the purpose of Penal Code section 290, to deter recidivism. Rejecting the argument presented by the Attorney General and adopted by the dissenting justice, the court further held that because the court below had agreed with appellant that no rational basis supported the distinction, appellant was relieved of the burden of proving the absence of a rational basis on appeal. Appellant could not be expected to prove on appeal an issue that had been conceded below.