Jim’s story in Chapter 23 -- about convincing his organization that it was right to pay the moving costs of his new hire's domestic partner, even though that was against company policy -- really hit home for me. In 2000, I was taking a job with Discovery Channel in Maryland, and they were paying to relocate me from Texas. But when they found out that my girlfriend Julie would be moving back with me, they refused to move her. At that point we had been living together for several years (but were not married), and indeed my former employer, Whole Foods, had even allowed me to cover her under my insurance. But not Discovery. They sent me a letter telling me that we would have to separate all of our goods, marking them as “his” and “hers,” and that they would only pay to move my possessions. Apparently, their policy was that they would pay to move a married couple, and they would pay to move a same-sex couple, but they would not pay to move unmarried opposite-sex partners! Julie and I of course just ignored their directive, since all of our goods were commingled by that time anyway. But the absurdity of the situation really struck me. The company was trying to be so hip and progressive, and in the process had created a really stupid policy that I felt ethically correct in ignoring. Now that "non-traditional households" like mine are actually in the majority in America, I wonder whether Discovery has a new policy....