President Bush asked Congress Tuesday to approve a constitutional amendment banning gays from marrying throughout the country.

Bush said the amendment would reflect “an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.”

“Activist courts have left the people with one recourse,” Bush said. “If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America.”

The announcement came on the heels of a nationwide controversy regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriages under its equal protection laws.

Julia McGinley, president of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Ally Alliance, said the amendment impeded the right of those groups to live under the same rights as others.

“It sent shivers down my spine,” she said. “I got a lump in my throat and a knot in my gut.”

McGinley, junior in hotel, restaurant and institution management, said the proposed amendment represents federally sanctioned discrimination.

“It’s very difficult to actually live in a society where the president asks for laws restricting me from engaging in the same rights and responsibilities that my parents and siblings engage in,” she said.

“It’s allowing the government to make the presumption that … marriages and civil unions are different, and all sorts of assumptions can be made from that.”

A staff member of Iowa State’s Campus Crusade for Christ, Gary Schmalz, 1020 Ridgewood Ave., said he agreed with President Bush’s request.

“I do agree with the president’s position on this issue,” he said. “To my understanding, law is determined by the legislature, and I think we have members of the judicial system that are going outside of that process.”

Schmalz said while he would like to have seen the issue handled without resorting to an amendment, he believes the proposed amendment would protect the legality of restricting homosexual marriage in America.

Dirk Deam, lecturer of political science, said, legally, the issue simply boils down to equal protection rights.

“If you afford protection to heterosexuals under these laws, a case can be made for homosexuals as well. Under law, a state supreme court can interpret its own constitution, which seems to be what’s been done here. So a federal amendment may be a little premature,” he said.

He said Bush’s decision to make a federal issue out of a state court decision could set a poor precedent.

“The bigger question is whether we want moral problems dealt with as federal issues,” he said. Deam said he expected Bush to receive support from conservative voters for his stance on the crowd, and said that it was no coincidence that Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry hails from Massachusetts.

Both Kerry and Edwards said they oppose gay marriages but would not support a constitutional amendment.

“I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil union,” Kerry said. “I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the state.”

However, Bush did leave an open door for states to legalize civil unions.

“The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage,” Bush said.

— The Associated Press Contributed to this article.