SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court halted gay weddings in San Francisco, but only so it can take the time to decide whether they are legal.

Across the country in Massachusetts - where the state's high court has already ruled that gays can marry - lawmakers returned to the Capitol to consider undoing the justices' mandate with a constitutional amendment.

California's high court now must decide in May or June whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The city has responded by filing a lawsuit demanding a judge declare the marriages constitutionally permissible, a question that could take at least another year to decide.

"I'm pleased the process is working as well as it is," Newsom said Thursday. "Now we will be getting to the Supreme Court and making our argument."

Minutes after Thursday's ruling, teary-eyed couples were turned away at San Francisco's City Hall, where 4,161 gay weddings have been performed since Feb. 12.

"We were filling out the application and they told us to stop," said Art Adams, who was the first to be denied, along with partner Devin Baker. "It's heartbreaking. I don't understand why two people in love should be prevented from expressing it."

The court did not void those marriages, leaving the gay newlyweds in legal limbo.

Newsom's defiance of California law sparked a host of other municipalities across the nation to follow suit.

"They restored order to chaos in San Francisco," said Joshua Carden, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, one of two conservative groups that went to court to block the marriages.

Massachusetts lawmakers ended their impasse Thursday with a recess until March 29, stopping just short of final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but make Massachusetts the second state to grant civil-union benefits.

The civil unions provision was little solace to gay-rights advocates, who want lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the Supreme Judicial Court.

"For many legislators, prejudice won out over equality," Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said after the current version of the amendment survived through three rounds of votes Thursday.

Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini expressed optimism that after weeks of intense debate and failed compromises, lawmakers were headed toward consensus.

"I believe we've overcome significant hurdles to get to this point," Travaglini said. "I would hope that the road gets somewhat smoother and that we have encountered all of the bumps along the way, as of today."

If approved later this month, the constitutional amendment would then proceed to the next step in the convoluted process, which would take effect in 2006 at the earliest.