In a recent interview, Mr. Dukakis described the amendment as "outrageous".
The beverage industry and its nonprofit partners describe the amendment as a minor tweak — so minor that they didn't bother to tell the people who applauded them the previous year for striking such a bold deal.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of six Republicans who opposed the measure, described the amendment regulating marriage -- normally a state function -- as "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" because it interfered with states rights.
Australia's attorney general, George Brandis, described the amendment as protecting "the right to be a bigot" when he announced his support of the changes.
In an op-ed written well after the fact, former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, the only Republican Senator to oppose the war, described the amendment in much the same frame.
Critics of the language, including pro-Israel organizations like J Street and Americans for Peace Now, described the amendment as an underhanded effort to protect Israeli settlements, which are a violation of international law.
Clarke described the amendments as going "to extreme lengths to meet every practical legal objection that has been made about the bill.
Writing for the Chicago Tribune, Playboy editor John Thomas described the amendments as sensible, but pointed out that some view them as an attempt to legislate policy decisions.
The group is against efforts it says are pushed by radical feminists or encroach on US sovereignty, such as guest-worker visas, according to its website, which describes the Equal Rights Amendment as having had a "hidden agenda of tax-funded abortions and same-sex marriages".
"It's the R.N.C.'s talking points," Matzzie added, describing the Cornyn amendment.
