This week on Top Chef: Season 6, lesbian contestant Ashley Merriman got fired up about a wedding-related challenge because she and the show’s other LGBT contestants “are not allowed in that institution.” Her sense of conflict sparked discussion (video here) with fellow lesbian chef Preeti Mistry, who validated Merriman’s anger—saying that she herself has a partner of 13 years—but also pragmatically noted, “This is the world we live in today.”

In the gray area between these two women’s perspectives lies an important question in the way we approach the topic of marriage equality with our straight friends and potential allies. It is a question I first considered earlier this week when I came across the National Marriage Boycott, a student-led LGBT rights group that is calling on heterosexuals to boycott marriage until we can all say “I do.” The question is: Can we really seek to deny matrimonial bliss to straight couples just because we can’t share the cake? Or as Merriman may have wished, should we opt out of participating in opposite-sex weddings—even when it is our job or our familial duty to be there—because of our own personal discomfort? Isn’t that sort of the pot calling the kettle black?

The Top Chef wedding brouhaha compelled top judge Tom Colicchio to confront the issue in his blog, “On Rites, Rights, and Cooking Right.” True to character, Colicchio issued a tough but fair assessment: After a hefty helping of support for marriage equality (“The institution of marriage should be available to all,” he wrote), Colicchio defended the show’s wedding-themed challenge and recalled three similar previous episodes (including a gay wedding in San Francisco back in Season 1). But then he said this:

“I understand how Ashley felt, but by logical extension, does this mean that she would never attend a friend’s wedding or prepare something for that wedding ceremony as a gift? If a couple came to her restaurant wanting to host their reception there, would she turn them away?”

That’s the money question, isn’t it? Would Merriman—or any of us who have ever felt pangs of regret and jealously in the face of two lovebirds about to be married—really deny her blessing to, say, her best friend’s nuptials? Would she refuse the patronage of a wedding party at her Seattle restaurant? Perhaps—and it would be a bold and understandable, even honorable, statement. But is this act of protest good for her friendship or for her business? Probably not so much. So is it good for the business of obtaining marriage equality?

Don’t get me wrong: I sympathize with Chef Merriman’s very justified reaction to the wedding challenge. Similarly, I appreciate the efforts (and tweeted my support) of the National Marriage Boycott to gain visibility for the marriage equality movement. And I am hugely flattered by any straight couple who would waive their right to marriage in solidarity to our cause. But if we believe that marriage equality will strengthen the institution of marriage—which we do!—should we not bolster that institution even as we storm its gates?

Boycotting marriage may provide us with some temporary relief from the frustration of inequality, but it also disposes of a great opportunity: The opportunity to show not just our huge esteem for the institution of marriage but to show ourselves in the context of marriage. By taking a seat at our straight friends’ weddings, or by preparing the food for their nuptials, we are in a subtle yet very potent way asking them to exercise good manners and pass the frickin cake. -chf