After the “first 100 days” of Barack Obama’s presidency have come and gone, some LGBT groups are calling foul on the absence of gay issues on the president’s table. The “fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans” has failed, thus far, to significantly advance gay rights, as even the mainstream media are pointing out with comment and criticism.

I am not of one mind on this subject. I am, of course, unequivocally in favor of advancing LGBT rights, but I’m also open to the argument that political moves must be well-timed and balanced. The more ambitious items on the LGBT agenda will involve intense political battles, and it may be smarter to wait until the air is clear of more imminent issues — the economy being first and foremost — to move forward.

I am also a fan of Barack Obama: I think his presidency is an unequivocally good thing for LGBT Americans. His rhetorical abilities ensure that LGBT people have the most prominent and skilled spokesperson possible, who can help win lasting support for the movement, and regardless of the status of same-sex marriage this president can and will be the catalyst behind hate crimes bills and HIV/AIDS support and other issues of dire importance.

Then there are those pesky other issues I care about: support for science, increasing access to healthcare, expanding public transportation, protecting the environment, improving education nationwide. I proudly supported Barack Obama in 2008, and will more than likely vote for him again in 2012 — even if I’m annoyed with his procrastination on concrete LGBT issues.

But that doesn’t mean I am in step with the president’s decision to simply put us in queue. We all know there is a lot to do during our days of global economic distress, but surely the case for equal rights is compelling enough squeeze in a few more minutes of work.

President Obama has an approval rating of almost 70% and political capital to spend on gay rights. Even an affirmative comment on the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to force the legalization of gay marriage in the state — which the president, dismissively, only said he “respects” — would be something. It would take mere minutes to write and release a better statement. As a presidential candidate, Obama claimed to be a proponent of equality, but now he seems to be allowing those of his supporters who are anti-gay to remain personally unchallenged in their thinking.

It’s safe to say that the president personally believes in gay rights. There’s no way that a Constitutional law professor, raised by his nonreligious mother and grandparents, would end up having puritanical religious convictions against same-sex rights when universities and academic communities are among the most pro-gay institutions in the country. Nor would a firm believer in common sense and science deny that same-gender-loving people are a benign variance in the human condition.

When Obama was an Illinois state senator representing a district in Chicago, he sponsored legislation including lesbians and gays in anti-discrimination statutes and previously indicated support for same sex marriage. When he got to statewide politics he didn’t pull back; the Human Rights Campaign gave him a score of 89 out of 100 on gay rights in the United States Senate in 2006.

It was only when he arrived in national politics that Obama, like every presidential candidate does and must do, de-emphasized his most controversial political positions. He became less direct about gay rights and qualified his position on same-sex marriage, supporting civil unions instead, though few on the left or right were fooled into thinking he was anything less than liberal on social issues. And after 100 days in office, the president is being criticized for a failure to move on the LGBT issues he supports. Many would say he needs to throw us a bone to remind us that he’s serious.

“Pragmatism” is a bitter pill for LGBT people to swallow after facing hundreds of years of bullshit that seems only to accelerate when gay rights become a distinct possibility, and are thus politicized by opponents. I don’t see many straight Americans having to endure political TV commercials comparing their dignity to an approaching dark storm. And just because it’s “always been that way” doesn’t mean its OK to let it continue for long. I grant Barack Obama a reprieve of judgment on his failure to move on gay rights within the first three months of his presidency, but I will find fault if I see it pushed back all the way until a second term.

Ultimately I find a 100-day test to be a shortsighted analysis of the president’s handling of issues of inequality that have been boiling for decades. It seems more realistic to comment after his first year — especially given that next big item on the national agenda is of distinct importance to civil liberties. There’s a U.S. Supreme Court nomination coming up in the next months, and the appointment of a solid liberal who believes in gay marriage would be a huge asset to us on the issue as it will probably come up in the highest court during the next decade.

The ripest target for those in favor of gay rights is repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, a federal law forcing lesbians and gays in the military to remain in the closet or be discharged. Many political analysts believe its a battle LGBT people could win if the president would only take up the charge since the public is with us on the issue.

A second, perhaps more far-fetched victory would be for President Obama to appoint an openly gay person to the Supreme Court, which may result in major unrest among social conservatives but would be a huge gesture to lesbians and gays that their nation’s leader is an ally. While I’d be surprised to see an openly gay Supreme Court appointment in 2009, I’d also be quite surprised if the appointee didn’t turn out to be strongly pro-gay on the bench, and I’ll be similarly surprised if Don’t Ask Don’t Tell still exists four years from now.

My call is to withhold judgment a little longer, but to continue applying political pressure on the White House to give us something substantial. Even Rachael Maddow, a solidly pro-Obama rising news anchor who we love, is beginning to turn up the heat (below) by zooming in on changes on the White House website where it discusses Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. And though I tend to look at LGBT politics on a meta-level, with my views mostly decided and my focus, instead, on strategy, I’m glad there are forces ready to criticize a president for not being pro-gay enough. That’s what they exist to do.