Why do social conservatives hate mainstream science so much? And what has, what will it cost them? How is this relevant to us? Let's take the current example of climate change denial. Recently, the ACT Party, Federated Farmers and Family First held a tiny rally against the Emissions Trading Scheme, which is about to be introduced, but whose Australian equivalent has been obstructed by Tony Abbott, Howard era relic and doomed erstwhile Australian Leader of the Liberal/National Opposition. Family First?! Yes, apparently, "families" are bothered that there will be extra consumer taxes. Never mind the science. In fact, that's the social conservative catch-22. They are engaged in what is patently and obviously 'class warfare'. In their case, they don't tend to have put a high premium on professional skills and medical and scientific expertise, which has had some fortuitously devastating consequences for them. To put it bluntly and concisely, they don't have the medical and scientific expertise at their disposal to win political arguments. That tactical and strategic high ground belongs to us, their opponents, when it comes to issue after issue. Take Section 59 Repeal. Overwhelmingly, mainstream child health and welfare groups supported the prohibition of physical punishment of children, because evidence-based research from pediatrics and developmental psychology backed such a public policy. Now, Family First, the Kiwi Party and their cronies ranted, raved and marched about it, but is it any surprise that only three years later, their lack of substantive expertise has meant that they've run out of ephemeral populist venom, and repeal has survived? Or 'intelligent design' creationism? This pseudo-science may do a roaring trade in fundamentalist bookshops but it is limited to their subculture (and Queensland). Similarly, mainstream medical practitioners oppose the anti-abortion movement, so fortunately, its misogynist sectarianism has no input into women's reproductive and sexual health. And so it is with same-sex parenting. Justice Minister Simon Power and the Key administration are only delaying the inevitable if they continue to stonewall and postpone the eventual need to engage in adoption law reform. All it means is that the LGBT community will continue to remain mobilised and informed about this remaining area of substantive discrimination and that we will continue to accumulate an already crushing advantage in terms of substantive research evidence about the benefits of same-sex parenting from pediatrics and developmental psychology. When the time comes, we will be more than amply prepared for the task ahead. All this delay is doing is trying our already stretched patience with the Key administration over this issue. David Cameron supports adoption reform. Britain, most Canadian provinces, Western Australian, Tasmania, Israel and the Australian Capital Territory have already implemented it, more or less. Social movements succeed when they realise that they need evidence-based medical and scientific professional research and expertise at their disposal. If not, they falter, crash and burn. In the case of antigay backlash politics, we learnt that lesson long ago. It is not wise to linger in the tactical and strategic vicinity of anti-science populists like the Christian Right, climate change deniers and assorted other purveyors of scientific illiteracy for long. Tony Abbott is about to reap the bitter response to his own scientific illiteracy and obstructionism in the forthcoming Australian federal election and ACT risks trying the public patience once too often over the same issue. Short term expediency is one thing, strategic management and continuity is quite another. And given the pathetic past form of our opponents and our existing stockpile of amenable evidence-based proof about same-sex parenting, the case will only grow greater, as will the perceptions of injustice if adoption reform is not forded during the intermediate future. Craig Young - 5th July 2010