Iowa voters voted out three judges who overthrew the will of the people and asserted that the state must execute homosexual "marriages".
Nordicus opposes homosexual "marriage" for reasons I'll explain later. (They're not very original.) However, if the majority instituted them, I'd tolerate it.
Here in California, a federal judge, Walker, decided to assert the power to overthrow the people's sovereignty and unilaterally nullify Prop 8, a popular constitutional amendment that protected real marriage. We can't vote him out. Nevertheless, anticipating that decision being reversed by a higher court, the advocates for homosexual marriage are gathering signatures to put the issue to a vote once again. Good for them.
How to choose and retain judges is a very challenging question. The Wall Street Journal editorial page discusses it a lot. I tend to prefer the California way of the governor nominating judges and the state senate confirming them. Then, after a period, the people have a "retention" vote, where they can vote out an incumbent judge.
As Iowa shows, the people need to be able to exercise some constraint over a judiciary that sees itself as a priesthood.