under the Due Pro cess Clause. For example, in Casey, the Supreme Court explicitly noted: Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no • doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia. 505 U.S. at 847-48, 112 S.Ct. 2791; see Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40, 94 S.Ct. 791, 39 L.Ed.2d 52 (1974) (recognizing that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); see also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has also recognized the
holding the right to marry is a central part of the liberty protected by the due process clause holding that private sexual contact between consenting adults is a liberty right protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that a state tort claim is a species of property protected by the due process clause holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that the due process clause protects only those liberty interests created by the state