It's getting to be a Valentine's Day tradition for Connie Baer and her partner of 27 years, Rita Marsh.

The women, both Ventura residents in their 70s, have tried for the past three years to get a marriage license at the Ventura County Government Center. On Thursday, they were back, along with another pair of Ventura seventysomethings, Edie Brown and Beverly Taylor.

On the busiest day of the year for weddings and marriage licenses at the County Clerk and Recorder's Office, the women approached the counter and asked for marriage licenses. The office's marriage supervisor, Sheila Harmon, greeted them with a smile and turned them down with the same statement she made when they approached last year: "Pursuant to Family Code Section 300, I am unable to issue this marriage license."

There weren't any tears this time. As she left the counter, Marsh smiled and said, "This might be the last time."

That's because on March 4, the state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that could overturn Family Code Section 300, which defines marriage as a contract between a man and woman. A decision is expected by the first week of June.

The case could represent the end of a four-year legal battle that began when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom married about 4,000 same-sex couples. Their marriages were nullified when the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom didn't have the authority to defy the law that describes marriage as a contract between a man and woman.

The court, however, didn't decide on the underlying substantive issue: whether the California Constitution's equal-protection clause means same-sex marriages must be recognized.

"This should get to the heart of the matter," said Brad Sears, a UCLA law professor and executive director of the university's Charles R. Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy.

There are three important laws at play here, Sears said. The first is Family Code 300, which excludes same-sex couples from the definition of marriage. The second is the equal-protection clause, which the court has interpreted in the past to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The third is Proposition 22, a constitutional amendment approved by state voters in 2000. It also defines marriage as a union of a man and woman, but there is debate over whether it was meant to forbid same-sex marriages in California or just prevent California from recognizing such marriages performed in other states, Sears said.

'Denied a civil right'

"The Supreme Court invited people to bring this case, and I think people thought that the invitation to bring the substantive case was a good indicator" that the court would rule in favor of gay marriage, Sears said. "I don't think anyone's betting on it, though."

The state's most visible anti-gay-marriage group is already bracing for a loss. Randy Thomasson, the president of the Campaign for Children and Families, said in an e-mail that it is "highly likely the California Supreme Court will license same-sex marriages' this summer."

"The question is, will the law respect or destroy the definition of marriage?" he said.

Thomasson's group is circulating a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to directly ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. It has so far failed to qualify for the ballot.

The women who tried to obtain marriage licenses in Ventura on Thursday said they were being denied, in Brown's words, "a civil right."

"We know we won't get the license today, but somebody has to take a stand," she said.

She and Taylor were legally married five years ago, in Canada, but the contract isn't valid in California. They are registered as domestic partners here, which gives them some of the benefits of marriage but not all of them. They can't file federal taxes jointly, for example.

"You can't count on any of those rights being around tomorrow or being recognized in another state," said Baer, who has a registered domestic partnership with Marsh.

'They didn't make the rules'

The Valentine's Day marriage license denial has become a common protest across the state. About 30 people came to the Government Center on Thursday to support the two couples and present them with Denial of Marriage certificates.

No one blamed County Clerk- Recorder Phil Schmit or his staff for turning them down.

The couples and their supporters met with Schmit beforehand, and he told them they would be treated just like any straight couple whose license request is rejected.

"The clerks have been great; they couldn't be nicer," Baer said. "They didn't make the rules, and you can't blame them for enforcing them."