fit' between governmental purpose and the means chosen to advance that purpose.”). 13 . Some other courts have similarly concluded that Lawrence did not announce a new fundamental right along the lines argued for by the plaintiffs. See Marcum, 60 M.J. at 204-05 ("In Lawrence, the Court did not expressly identify the liberty interest as a fundamental right. Therefore, we will not presume the existence of such a fundamental right in the military environment when the Supreme Court declined in the civilian context to expressly identify such a fundamental right.”); Loomis, 68 Fed.Cl. at 517-18 (same); cf. Muth, 412 F.3d at 817-18 (finding that Lawrence did not announce a fundamental right of adults to engage in all forms of private consensual sexual conduct); Lofton, 358 F.3d at 815-17 (<HOLDING>); Limon, 122 P.3d at 29-30 (holding that
holding right to be fundamental holding that the right to vote is fundamental recognizing private right of action holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right holding that lawrence did not create a fundamental right to private sexual intimacy