It's a philosophical red line, really. It's simply not something that belongs to the state, or even to the country. It would be like trying to legislate that the sky was green.
Similarly the metric system - which has actual advantages that mere linguistic change does not, and legal support - has been accepted only very grudgingly. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Martyrs )
(Doesn't linguistic reform occasionally cause discontinuities in literature? What happens if you want to use a metaphor or turn of phrase that's been forcibly obsoleted?
Like, I might occasionally refer to something as being "tuppence-ha'penny", despite that coin being abolished over thirty years ago.
> What happens if you want to use a metaphor or turn of phrase that's been forcibly obsoleted?
The same that happens when you try to read any old literature. Like the Illias, which talks about "wine-colored sea" (it was dark blue – the brightness was meant, not hue), or shakespear, etc.
> It's simply not something that belongs to the state, or even to the country.
That likely differs here because the German language was unified in the first place by an academic, and not through consensus.
I’m not sure why English speakers resist it so much, it simplifies the situation so much, and isn’t an issue anyway.