The Republican-led House on Friday approved a defense bill which includes two anti-gay amendments.

The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was approved with a 299 to 120 vote and now heads to the Senate. The White House has threatened a veto over the bill's $642 billion price tag – $8 billion higher than Congress agreed to last summer.

One amendment offered by Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican from Missouri, protects chaplains who refuse to marry gay couples.

“Liberals may have successfully ended 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' but they should not be allowed to force members of our military to give up their religious beliefs,” Akin said in a statement. “That is simply unacceptable and and unconstitutional.”

A second measure bans gay marriage on any military facility. It says bases “may not be used to officiate, solemnize, a marriage, or marriage-like ceremony” that is not between a heterosexual couple.

Military officials opened the door to such ceremonies last year. Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley wrote in a memo that chaplains may officiate the marriage and civil union ceremonies of gay couples, including on a military installation, but are not required to.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), the largest lobby group representing gay troops, expressed disappointment.

“At SLDN, we are disappointed that this language is a part of the House defense bill,” Sarvis said in a statement. “The fact of the matter is, there are already in place adequate protections for chaplains and service members in this area. This language weakens implementation of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, which Americans support and which our nation's military leaders have said is being implementing smoothly.”

“This is yet another attempt by a few opponents of military equality who are looking to turn the clock back on progress and relegate gay and lesbian service members to second-class status,” he added.

White House officials called the anti-gay amendments “troublesome and potentially unconstitutional,” The Los Angeles Times reported.