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?”

Pakaluk said Bush’s stance might force Democrats into the uncomfortable position of having to support same-sex marriage.

“Democratic candidates, such as Kerry, will probably be forced into taking an unpopular position,” he said.

Harvard College Democrats President Andrew J. Frank ’05 said backlash from the announcement could hurt Bush.

“It’s going to smack of bigotry,” he said. “It’s just going to highlight how faithfully he panders to the right-wing.”

The College Dems board and legislative committee issued a statement last night denouncing the proposed amendment as a “cynical attack on millions of Americans for political gain.”

The Harvard Republican Club (HRC), however, is reluctant to take an official position on the issue, according to spokesperson Lauren K. Truesdell ’06, who cited a conflict between states’ rights on the one hand, and conservative social values, on the other.

She said the issue would not affect HRC’s support for the president.

“In the campaign, we’re going to focus on issues that unite us, not those that divide us,” she said.

Mansfield said that this issue would be overshadowed by Iraq in the upcoming election, but speculated that it might have some marginal benefit for the Republican party.

“It seems to show that the Democrats or liberals are unwilling to seek their goals through elections and legislatures, and try to do so either by wrenching the law or violating it,” he said.

For their part, the College Dems and the BGLTSA said they would be carefully watching how the issue develops. If the amendment were ever put to a vote in the state legislature they would campaign against it.

—Staff writer Nathaniel A. Smith can be reached at nsmith@fas.harvard.edu.