In a word...no!
In a few more words, yes you can make a case for "liberty" and "natural rights" but I don't think you can extend this interpretation of "liberty" to define specific "Constitutional rights".
Perhaps the original Texas law is/was poorly written, badly enforced, or obsolete, but I still don't think the Supreme Court has any business issuing rulings on any sexual behaviour. In effect, they are re-writing state laws, aren't they? The problem is, they're setting that precedent, and there could (likely will) be all kinds of "unintended consequences" that go way beyond this one decision.
It actually occurs to me that this whole "neighbor with a grudge" story was a set-up, to start at the bottom (LOL!) and eventually get this case all the way to the Supreme Court...Rush is saying similar right now, not about my "conspiracy theory" but about "Supreme Court arbitration"...
Try unconstitutional.