Great marriage advice.

[Crunchy]

Then I think we have different definitions of morality. 
If you mean principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior or a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, or culture that is meant to be good for humans (which is how I define it) then we have to determine in what context this applies. For example, it is not a moral question to ask if it's good or bad to be caught in a landslide. Falling rocks have no morality. So we can clearly determine that morality only applies to moral agents like humans.
  
IMO, the issue is not about morality existing outside of human beings, (making it universally objective) but whether the judgments we make are more than merely arbitrary.  Therefore, the facts concerning the physical nature of humans force us to gravitate to our basic needs as a means to any other end. You get nowhere without oxygen for instance.  I've pointed this out in other discussions around morality by highlighting Maslow's  hierarchy of needs. No one chooses what our basic needs are, therefore they are not subjective.

It is an objective fact that Maslow's basic rungs have value to us that allows us to survive long enough to pursue other goals. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality.

If, however, you define morality as anything you want it to be, then that definition has no boundaries and it is not possible to reach any conclusions about a definition that has no boundaries. Is this what you mean by morality?

Just did a quick look at Maslow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s...y_of_needs    I didn't see anything about objective morals, only needs (morals, not identified as objective, show up in self-actualization).  Don't confuse facts or basic needs with morals or values. BTW, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory. Also see critiques. 

What the hell are you talking about landslides and oxygen for. Or even arbitrary. I have no clue where you picked that up from. It's morals, as in human behavior.

I'll work from this definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

OK, tell me how morality is objective.

Ok, here are the definitions you linked to:
a :  of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :  ethical moral judgments
b :  expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior: a moral poem
c :  conforming to a standard of right behavior: took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

Right or wrong in relation to what? Right behavior about what? Well, that would be in relation to what is "good" for people, and how people should behave in that dynamic. (i.e. morality only applies to moral agents and not to falling rocks)

So now we have to figure out what it means to be "good" to people. Enter our basic needs as presented in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Our basic needs are not a theory and there is no disagreement about them. The need for food, clean water and air etc...  are objectively good for us. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality. You cannot morally deny a child food and clean water without some other mitigating circumstance that you would have to have a convincing argument for, otherwise you are in contradiction of the definitions of morality that you yourself linked to.

I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive. You will find the same basic position in Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" where he argues that moral questions will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.
(I have only heard Harris talk about the book, I have not yet read it myself)