If you have been paying any attention, there is a great deal of political and media-inspired moral outrage from certain segments of our society toward theological conservatives regarding their core beliefs about marriage. What lies behind today's cultural phenomenon is that traditional views about marriage are now considered sinful and immoral. Proponents of traditional marriage are frequently shouted down, mocked and marginalized even before they have the opportunity to express their views.
But no one should miss the irony: this moral outrage is coming from so-called relativists who originally prided themselves of having rid the world of all dogma, sin and heresy. But as soon as a person begins telling other people how they ought to (and ought not to) behave and think, then you are speaking as if you really do affirm an objective, universal morality (which is morally binding for everyone). So which is it? Do relativists believe everyone's beliefs are equally valid or do they believe that some ideas are truly better then others? If better, then they are appealing to a real moral standard as if one existed outside of ourselves. If you cannot demonstrate the objective existence of this standard that is binding on everyone then their moral outrage at our position is both absurd and contradictory.
If someone says, "but you are getting in our way of what we want" then it demonstrates that this is no longer about right and wrong but simply about wanting raw power. Relativists put on their "Tolerance" and "Coexist" bumper stickers but can't seem to get along with anyone unless they agree with them. Must everyone agree with relativism? To claim everyone OUGHT TO believe in relativism is to deny its very existence.