US: The US House of Representatives could not have been any more obvious if the sergeant-at-arms had wheeled an equine carcass into the well and the speaker had pummelled it with his gavel.
Tuesday's House debate on same-sex marriage was pure dead horse: the Senate last month rejected - emphatically - a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to ban gay marriage, so there was zero chance that the amendment could be approved this year.
But members of the House were answering to a Higher Authority. "It's part of God's plan for the future of mankind," explained John Carter (Republican, Texas).
Bob Beauprez (Rep, Colorado) also found "the very hand of God" at work. Mike Pence (Rep, Indiana) agreed that "it wasn't our idea, it was God's".
"I think God has spoken very clearly on this issue," said Phil Gingrey (Rep, Georgia), a mustachioed gynaecologist. When somebody quibbled, Gingrey replied: "I refer the gentleman to the Holy Scriptures."
Democrats and a couple of sympathetic Republicans wondered whether, with the House planning to spend just five more weeks in session for the rest of the year, their colleagues were fiddling while Beirut burned.
"We have a conflagration in the Middle East, we have raised the debt ceiling four times to $9 trillion, and this is how the Republican congressional leadership chooses to spend its time?" demanded an agitated James Moran (Democrat, Virginia).
"Let's be honest," said Jim Kolbe (Arizona), the chamber's only openly gay Republican, "this bill has been brought to the House floor by the leadership solely because of election year politics." He said it was an "affront to this institution".
"This same legislation was considered in the Senate, where it didn't even receive a majority vote, much less the required two-thirds."
The House, in a 236 to 187 vote, managed to improve slightly on its 2004 performance but, to nobody's surprise, fell short of the two-thirds required by 46 votes.
By election year calculations, that was a victory. "I view today's vote as a successful failure," Pence announced.
That's because so much of the legislative agenda this year is about making points, not policy.
The House is calling this "values" week. In legislative output, it could be labelled "low-value" week, but that wouldn't give the chamber credit for other measures it is taking up, such as the "Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building Designation Act".
Marilyn Musgrave (Rep, Colorado), sponsor of the marriage amendment, used that logic to justify debate on her doomed bill. "Members of Congress are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time," she asserted. "Where are those who say we are wasting time when we are renaming post offices and federal buildings?"
Nobody had the heart to point out that post office namings usually pass.
Even some of those who supported the legislation in principle found the timing a bit suspect.
"I'll be voting for the amendment," allowed Bob Inglis (Rep, South Carolina). "I've got questions though: Why now? Why this amendment?"
Lincoln Davis (Dem, Tennessee) said he was a co-sponsor of the amendment and ultimately voted for it, but not before he chided: "I'm deeply troubled that some may be using this amendment to score political points with their base. Why else would we be voting for an amendment that has no chance of becoming law since the Senate has already rejected it?"
Others sidestepped the relevance question.
"Marriage is not about love," volunteered Todd Akin (Rep, Missouri), who noted his 31 years of betrothal. "It's about a love that can bear children."
"The world did not start with Adam and Steve," Louie Gohmert (Rep,Texas) told reporters.
Gingrey, the gynaecologist, posited that the debate was "about values and how this great country represents them to the world". After the vote, he elaborated: "This is probably the best message we can give to the Middle East in regards to the trouble we are having over there right now."
So that was it: The marriage debate wasn't about amending the Constitution; it was about quieting Hizbullah.