Lawmakers are considering whether Salt Lake City's newly approved domestic partner registry is simply a means toward health benefits or part of a national conspiracy to erode the meaning of marriage.

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Monday voted 4-0 to let the full Senate consider the matter.

"My motive is to provide good benefits to the city's employees and to our residents," said Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker of the registry, which recently received unanimous support from the Salt Lake City Council. It gives companies who choose to provide domestic partner benefits an easy way to verify such relationships and provides the right to hospital visitation.

But Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, says he's sponsoring SB267 to overrule Salt Lake City because he sees the registry as "an open checkbook" to future benefits that "mimics Utah's marriage recognition policy to a T."

Whether that registry violates the state's marriage policy was a key point discussed Monday, as lawmakers heard from Salt Lake's attorney that the registry is not even close to "substantially similar to marriage."

However, former state Rep. LaVar Christensen, who sponsored the marriage policy in 2004 with Buttars, said "if they have a broader agenda, they are going too far."

Attorney Frank Mylar said the registry is part of a national ruse by "homosexual groups like the Human Rights Campaign ... to get as many marriage lookalikes" as possible to start creating an equal protection argument.

The question of just what is allowed under the state's marriage policy was also a topic in 2004 before voters approved it in the ballot box. Back then, Monte Stewart, a supporter of the policy, had said that to be in violation a relationship would have to be sexually based and "walk, talk and act like a marriage."

Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, was at the time head of the campaign against Amendment 3 and had raised concerns that the marriage policy could prevent even basic benefits for same-sex couples.

On Monday, Will Carlson, spokesman for Equality Utah, said, "We were accused of being ridiculous for suggesting that hospital visitation could be prohibited under Amendment 3," which constitutionally banned same-sex marriage in Utah.

Stewart said that "based on what I know, this city ordinance does not violate" that, in large part because it's based on mutual dependence, not a sexual relationship.

However, Christensen said the city registry does potentially violate the policy because "it creates a whole new vocabulary" and recognition.