You'll get no disagreement from me on those two statements.
Morals are either relative to man or God - there no other possible choices available.
Here is where we begin to part company. I don't agree with your dichotomy. I see other possibilities.
In the case of Ayn Rand, morals are relative to HER and her alone - she made up her own moral principles and in the instances where her principles agree with "true" moral principles from God, it is only coincidental since she did not believe in God. Some people agree with Ayn Rand but many others do not. Who is correct?
That would be some valuable information, eh? ;)
You see, without universal moral principles (universal principles can come only from God), morals are reduced to mere opinions and preferences and none can claim any authority.
Again, we diverge here. Universal principles come from wherever they come from. If there is a God, so be it. Universal principles come from Him. If not, the universal principle that the sun warms the earth will not change, and thus its source lies elsewhere.
I believe in one universal principle for moral behavior: liberty. Others can disagree. I'd like to hear their arguments against liberty. Others can claim there are additional universal principles. I may agree with some of them, but it is when principles begin piling up, adherents begin deserting.
The sun warming the earth is an empirical fact that can be observed. It's a physical reality. This does not pertain to morals and is a different category from moral principles. Moral principles are not material objects and cannot just hang in mid-air like magic - they must have a source - and the only two possible choices are man or God. Name another possibility.