This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

A controversial bill that would kill Salt Lake City's newly minted domestic-partnership registry stalled Friday, but could return after a tuneup.

Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, suggested the measure could be tweaked to avoid making a broad philosophical statement.

"It was causing so much grief," he said.

So Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble, R-Provo, plucked the bill from the Senate floor Friday and shelved it in the Rules Committee.

Despite the move, Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker stopped short of celebrating.

"It could be the end of the bill or it could be brought back out," said Becker, a former House minority leader. "I've been up here long enough to know anything is possible."

Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, still is fighting for his bill.

"It's alive and well," he insisted Friday.

Steeped in sexual-identity politics, SB267 would eradicate the registry - passed unanimously by the City Council and providing a voluntary mechanism for business owners to offer health benefits for same-sex couples and other adults who cohabit.

Becker complains that the bill also could erase a 2006 city ordinance granting health insurance to adult designees of city employees.

Buttars insists the registry runs afoul of Amendment 3, the provision in the Utah Constitution that bans gay marriage.

But Becker argues Buttars' bill has broader applications for opposite-sex family and friends, and insists the state should not "step into the shoes" of local governments.

Late Friday, Valentine said some senators are interested in a different tack.

One of the possibilities would be to spell out specifically what benefits the Legislature believes are prohibited under Amendment 3, Valentine said.

"It's totally dependent on the other members of the body who want to look at the issue," he said.

Meantime, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff disputes the notion - spread by Buttars - that he thinks the registry prohibition is necessary because it violates Amendment 3.

"I've cleared that up with the senators that that's not what I've said," Shurtleff explained.

Instead, Shurtleff said he told Buttars and others that SB267 would remove benefits the attorney general had been assured would not be cut when Shurtleff campaigned against Amendment 3.

"I did tell Senator Buttars that I don't see why there is a need for the law," he said.

Shurtleff said he's convinced someone would challenge the registry in court, adding it would be best to "let them litigate it and let the courts decide."