"Afterwards, parliament discusses that and makes a decision. Of course, we will all be held to account, in this or that way, for the decision that will be made, first and foremost in elections," he told reporters.
Grbin dismissed claims that the committee on the Constitution made an unconstitutional decision yesterday by recommending that parliament call a referendum in which citizens would decide only about launching constitutional changes and not about the changes.
"The Constitution stipulates how it is changed. Two-thirds of MPs decide about changing the Constitution, after which parliament proclaims the change. I don't see what is contentious here."
He confirmed that, under the Constitution, a decision adopted at a referendum was binding but that it bound parliament only to initiate constitutional changes.
A reporter said the question in the referendum wanted by the "In the Name of the Family" initiative was not if citizens wanted to launch constitutional changes but if they wanted the Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual union, to which Grbin said, "The referendum question is exactly as submitted by the civil initiative."
Asked how he would vote in parliament if a majority of citizens said at the referendum that they wanted the Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual union, Grbin reiterated that he found it unacceptable.
He said he disagreed with the opinion of constitutional experts that such a position could cause a constitutional crisis.
As for the fact that the Constitution saw referendums as a form of direct democracy, he said, "Citizens express their will in several ways. One way are elections, one is direct deciding in referendums. However, in case of the Constitution, it is stipulated who changes it and I see nothing contentious there. At a referendum, the procedure to change the Constitution is launched."