There are two reasons.
First - it's because progressives always need to choose some taboo or another to shove up everyone else's ass (quite literally). They are always finding something considered socially objectionable and insist that virtue resides in 'accepting' and 'understanding' it.
Second - it does have some grounding in the way the U.S. tax system works.
Back in 1914, the progressives had the wonderful idea to implement an income based tax system that gave the federal government the authority to directly tax citizens based upon their income. As time went on, various interest groups and political arguments led to people believing they could incentivize marriage and child development by giving tax breaks for individuals who were filing as married. This was especially the case as more women began to go to work and this led to more dual income families where both parties would be taxed equally.
Thus - the exemptions for marriage were made.
This opened up a can of worms, though. The federal government relies upon the state's authority to determine marital status. The Tenth Amendment states that any power not expressly given to the federal government is reserved to the states. Since the institution of marriage appears nowhere in the Constitution - it is a power reserved to the States (and therefor denied to the federal government).
This means that some states can permit things like homosexual marriage while other states can not permit homosexual marriage. It also means that some states could theoretically not have any marriage at all (though all states do).
This means that it is impossible for the individual income tax code to be applied equally to all citizens it is intended to apply. Or - at least - not with equal outcomes, at least. Homosexual couples in a state that allows marriage between them would be able to benefit from the tax breaks granted to married families while those in states that did not would not be able to benefit from such things.
Thus - we end up with a conflict at the federal level regarding the equality of tax statuses that uses a federal tax as a grounds to support the violation of the Tenth Amendment that is intended to preserve the Separation of Powers between nation and state.
The only ruling the court could have made that is consistent with the Constitution is to dismiss the case, as the Supreme Court does not have the proper jurisdiction.
Technically - no state is actually compelled to obey this SCOTUS ruling, and should continue exactly as it was, prior. The Supreme Court doesn't have legal jurisdiction per the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land.
If the federal government wants to have the power to make laws regarding marriage - they must put forth and pass an amendment that grants them such authority.
Otherwise - the issue of what to do about marriage rests within the States and the States alone. The Federal Government can't touch it.
Which is why individual income taxes are a hideous idea and why they had to create an amendment to justify creating the federal income tax (because it was not constitutional within our original framework).
taxes?so it's about money now.
this decision hurts people:
first-the parents of the homosexual couple,the existence of someone means that their parents are straight,no matter what degree of tolerance they have,they will always be hurt when they know they have homosexual kids,and makes their sons and daughters go like :"c'mon government says it's legal,you can't say no."
and the parents will absolutely be hurt.
second-the adopted children
they will be hurt too,whether the thing they decide for themselves,imagine a kid is bullied in school because his parents are homos,and how they would get to live with this truth that will always be felt like "shame"
it shouldn't be about "money" or "***",it should be about the real feelings,the feelings that would connect a family.
