First off, I reject your word, "absolutists" since moral relativists like to use it as being synonymous with arrogance, close-mindedness, intolerance, self-righteousness, bigotry, etc. Jesus was the embodiment of absolute truth, but never an "absolutist".
Now, let me point out the "absolutism" in the illogical thinking of moral relativists, themselves:
Relativists consistently stand guilty of the philosophical sin of making exceptions to their own absolute rules.
They claim that Christianity is a religion of intolerance, that Christians have committed abuses in the name of their faith, that Christians shouldn’t impose their values on others, but leave them free to choose their own value systems.
But where did THEY get their ideas of tolerance and justice --- of right and wrong in general --- if they genuinely don’t believe in moral absolutes?
Indeed -- without such ideas, how can a rational person formulate a meaningful system of values?
C. S. Lewis wrote of his days as an atheist: “How had I got this idea of just and unjust? . . . A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”
* Moral truth is the opposite of moral error.
This statement would be MEANINGLESS unless there were a way to establish __objectively__ what moral truth is. (True for all people in all places at all times down through history)
If there were no such possibility, truth and error would, for all practical purposes, be the same, because we would have no objective way to tell one from the other.
But moral relativists don't care, since their moral decisions are subjective. Their willy-nilly judgements of what is right and what is wrong are subject to "the situation" (situation ethics)
Dangerous moral relativists like the Clintons see our Constitution as a "living document".
Yeah, you already said that.
I didn't disagree.
I'm not convinced you understand it.