President Bush announced yesterday that he will back a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, raising the stakes in a debate that has galvanized people across the nation and at Harvard.

Since last November, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, Harvard students have been following the national news on the matter.

Bush’s announcement has provoked a reaction from students on campus. Adam P. Schneider ’07, spokesperson for the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters’ Alliance (BGLTSA), said his organization was outraged.

“It creates a definitive second class of BGLT citizens, and it goes against fundamental freedoms,” said Schneider, also a Crimson editor.

A Crimson poll in December found that 77 percent of Harvard students supported the Massachusetts court ruling.

On the other side of the debate, Harvard Salient Managing Editor Maximilian A. Pakaluk ’05 said he supported the amendment, and thought Bush’s involvement was inevitable.

“Homosexualist activists have made this an issue and have forced the hand of people who want to defend marriage,” he said.

Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 also said he agreed with Bush’s decision.

“I just hope there’ll be a provision for civil unions. That way, neither side gets exactly what it wants,” he said.

Mansfield said he thought Bush’s announcement was prompted by the Massachusetts court ruling and the subsequent decision by the city of San Francisco to issue same-sex marriage licenses despite California’s statute prohibiting these unions.

“The question has become unavoidable... You have a wrenching of law and constitution and a municipal violation of existing state law,” he said. “It’s a matter of rule of law.”

According to Associate Professor of Government Barry C. Burden, however, Bush’s decision boiled down to political, not ideological, motives.

“Bush’s reelection campaign is just heating up, and this will appeal to his base,” he said. “This is a way to shift the agenda back to things they like to talk about.”

Burden said Bush had very little to lose by challenging decisions made in Massachusetts and California, two heavily liberal states.

“[A constitutional amendment] happened 17 times in 200 years,” said Burden. “I think [Bush] realizes that, so why not give it a spin?”