[Seizethecarp]

“So to acknowledge that homosexuals perceive they’re being discriminated against and believe they have a right to marry is to express empathy for same-sex marriage and validate their perceived discrimination?”

You have not used a completely parallel sentence construction to the Court ruling, but yes, such an acknowledgment would convey empathy.

Consider the following two examples using the Courts sentence construction:

I acknowledge "birther" frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...

In contrast...

I DO NOT acknowledge pedophile frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...

I acknowledge frustration of folks that I consider to have valid issues but I DO NOT acknowledge frustration of folks that I consider to have invalid or repugnant issues, even it I may take note of frustration by such folks.

I read the same distinction and use of the word “acknowledges” to convey a degree of validity in context in what the Court said:

“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”

[Red Steel]

I read the same distinction and use of the word “acknowledges” to convey a degree of validity in context in what the Court said:

“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”

You're correct. The court is not saying that "We agree" because they agree that Kerchner and Appuzo "are frustrated," and just to say yeah we see you are frustrated, which I think as silly. Of course they are. That's why they filed suit. The court is acknowledging that they are frustrated at the system that has failed to properly vet Obama. The court in a rare moment of candidness, agree that Congress, the lame press, and whoever else has failed at vetting Obama.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Like I said, you’re so far out in left field that you’ve lost all credibility on this one. That’s one of most absurd birther manipulations of the English language that I’ve ever read. (And I’ve read quite a few ...)

Wow.

[browardchad]

I read the same distinction and use of the word “acknowledges” to convey a degree of validity in context in what the Court said:

“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”

Unfortunately, you've quoted out of context. The full quote, in context:

Plaintiffs’claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.

Furthermore, ackowledging frustration is not the same as agreeing with the cause of the frustration. Ask any psychiatrist.