NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A gay father can’t flaunt a homosexual lifestyle when his son is around, a state appeals court has ruled.

But the state Court of Appeals said it was wrong for a Williamson County judge to send Joseph Randolph Hogue to jail for telling his son about being gay.

As part of a divorce hearing, the lower court had barred Hogue from “taking the child around or otherwise exposing the child to his gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle.” The court then slapped Hogue with a contempt of court ruling for telling his son he was gay.

Hogue appealed, saying the restraining order on his lifestyle was illegal, overly broad and had expired by the time he told his son he was gay.

The case dates back to February 2002, when Cher Lynn Hogue filed for divorce because she said her husband left the home to pursue a gay lifestyle. A divorce court, in a temporary restraining order, agreed with her that the couple’s son should not be exposed to the lifestyle.

But later that year, Cher Lynn Hogue said her husband allowed the child to be in the presence of a gay lover both at his home and in church.

A complaint filed by the wife’s attorney said Joseph Hogue told the boy that “when someone is gay, they are born like that.” He told his son that he was old enough to understand, and that his boyfriend was in love with him, according to the complaint.

Joseph Hogue was sentenced to two days in Williamson County jail in September 2002 for breaking the restraining order. Some of his visitation rights also were stripped away by the lower court.

The appeals court said it found nothing wrong with the lower court shielding the child from the gay lifestyle. But in the panel’s seven-page decision, Judge Frank Clement Jr. said the father had acted reasonably by simply telling his son he was gay.

Clement wrote that the restraining order wasn’t specific enough that the father would know he was barred from telling his son about his sexual orientation.

“We do not read the restraining order to prohibit a statement by the father that he is gay,” Clement wrote. “Thus, husband did not have notice that he was prohibited from telling his son he was gay and therefore cannot be held in contempt for doing so.”

The lower court did nothing wrong by taking the advice of a counselor and protecting the child from the gay lifestyle with a restraining order, the appeals court found.